Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we all support the troops. We all want to see Iraq built, or at least restored. There is only one issue that is in doubt: whether the $18 billion goes to Iraq as a loan or as a gift.

Now, we will have two chances to vote on that issue, at least two. First, the rule will come before this House. A vote for the rule is a vote to say that we will never get an explicit vote on whether this should be a loan or a gift. If you are in favor of an $18 billion gift out of the hides of the American taxpayer, you have to vote for the rule. If you vote against the rule, that opens it up to having a protected amendment, like one that I and others are proposing, to convert the $18 billion from a loan to a gift.

The second opportunity will be on the Rohrabacher amendment, and there will be other amendments, when we can strike the $18 billion. People should understand that does not mean that we do not build Iraq. Instead, that means the administration has to come forward with a loan package. So what is at issue in those votes, the only major issue that is going to be close on this floor, is whether the $18 billion is a loan or a gift.

Now, what happens if we make it a loan? I have a plan. Step one, renounce the $100 billion that Saddam Hussein borrowed.

Step two, loan $18 billion to Iraq. Result: Iraq has $18 billion of debt. The other approach, is to not renounce the $100 billion except that portion, that tiny portion, which is voluntarily forgiven. So then they will owe $60 or $70 or $80 billion, none of it to us. Then in 2008, in 2010, and 2012, the vast majority of Saddam's debt will be repaid.

Who gets the money? Twenty-five billion dollars to Saudi Arabia. Seventeen billion dollars to Kuwait. Seventeen to $30 billion to the other gulf states. That is right. If you go with the plan that is in this bill now, over $75 billion to rich oil states.

Reserving the right to object, the gentleman's unanimous consent applies to this one amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I thought that the Lee-Sherman amendment was getting 40 minutes equally divided. I could be wrong on that. What was the agreement?

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman mind having the Lee- Sherman amendment given 40 minutes?

Number 15.

That is a wonderful idea, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for arranging an extra 5 minutes to debate this important amendment. It is our intention to offer it, and then withdraw it at the end of this discussion, in the hopes that these issues can be dealt with effectively in conference. By withdrawing the amendment at the end of this discussion, we will save the House at least 30 minutes as compared to a recorded vote, thus giving my colleague a six-time return on his investment.

This is a good and necessary bill. We have an amazing credit system in this country where a bank on the east coast will compete for the opportunity to lend money to somebody on the west coast who they have never met; even when none of the banks' employees knows anyone who knows the borrower. Imagine that compared to where we were in this country 100 years ago, when it took a personal relationship with a banker to get a loan. This is an amazing system, and it can exist only with national credit reporting that borrowers and lenders can rely upon and only with a national system that regulates that national credit reporting.

But in our effort to have national standards, which our friends on the other side of the aisle have explained the importance of, we should not reach the lowest common denominator. Instead, we need to look at what the States have done to protect their consumers and try to have a national standard that is at least as high, or at least addresses each of the different consumer protection issues. So, this bill needs to be compared to California law to see whether it achieves that, or whether it might achieve it at the end of the conference.

There are two sets of consumer protections in California law. The first is known as the pre-SB1, pre-Speier's bill protections. In this area, we from California had been told that none of the California pre- SB1 protections would be preempted. But in fact, they were. However, the violence done by that preemption is perhaps not as great as some of my colleagues have pointed out because in many of the cases where California law was preempted, it was replaced by a national standard that was just as good for consumers, even if slightly different in form.

For example, there is the California requirement that consumer reporting agencies must disclose the names and addresses of all sources of information in the consumer report. That California law is preempted but replaced with an even stronger Federal law that not only requires that, but, (I thank the chairman for accepting my amendment in committee), also requires that the phone numbers, as well as the addresses, of those who provide that consumer information be provided in the consumer report.

So it is important that in conference, we take a look at all the pre- SB1 California provisions, make sure that whatever protections a Federal law preempts, are replaced by equally strong consumer protections.

In a few areas that is not the case, and I am confident that in conference, with the advocacy of our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and with the chairman of the committee, we will achieve that.

The second set of California Consuming Protections were given to us by SB1, the Speier's bill, which was passed while this Congress was in recess last month. There are several provisions of that bill that are not preempted by Federal law and that will do an outstanding job of protecting Californians, and I commend them to our committee and to the State legislatures around the country. One of those (SBI) provisions, however, would be preempted. That is what is called the opt-out provision dealing with affiliate information sharing.

We are talking about a situation where a person goes to a bank, provides the bank with their financial information, are the bank shares it with their affiliated insurance company or their affiliated stock brokerage company? Good business practice, as well as California law, allows a consumer to instruct their financial institution not to share their information with an affiliated company. I think that is smart business. I commend Jackie Speier of California for writing it into California law.

As we go to conference, hopefully this issue will be addressed. One way to address it is the way Bank of America already addresses it voluntarily, and this would be a compromise. That is to

say, that a consumer should be able to opt-out for purposes of marketing. The consumer would be able to say, Bank, do not have your insurance company call me. If we were able to get that, yes, California consumers might lose a tiny bit, but 280 million Americans would gain substantially.

I look forward to a conference that will assure consumers around this country, and those of California, with enhaused protections.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote 475. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements and related implementing legislation were put before the House this week. These agreements are far less objectionable than other free trade agreements of major economic importance which the United States has enacted in the last decade.

Viewed by themselves their disadvantages do not greatly exceed their advantages. These agreements are objectionable more for what is not in them than for what is in them. They will not in any event do much to decide our economic future.

What is left is symbolism. I used this opportunity to hopefully reduce slightly what has been interpreted as round of applause for our current trade policy by the House of Representatives this week.

Our current trade policy has produced the largest trade deficits in history. Our current accounts deficit for 2002 was $503 billion, our trade-in-goods deficit, about $485 billion. However you measure the deficit, it is now about 5 percent of GDP. At the beginning of the 1990s it was 1/5 of one percent of GDP. And our deficit has doubled in just about the last 3 years.

How far into the future can this continue--5 years, ten years? Either we will recognize this crisis in the middle years of this decade and take radical action, or we face an economic debacle, perhaps by the end of this decade, or certainly during the next.

The best reason to vote against these two trade agreements is that they represent a slight readjustment of two deck chairs as the Titanic approaches the iceberg. Whether the chairs will now be positioned in a slightly more auspicious manner during the few minutes before the iceberg is struck, or whether their adjustment puts the chairs in a slightly less auspicious position, is hardly the point.

I voted ``no'' on these trade bills. Lets shake our trade policy- makers out of their stupor and work on trade and economic policies that will put us back on track, and put Americans back to work.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.

Page 6, line 21, after the second dollar amount insert

``(increased by $150,000,000)''.

Page 45, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $200,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember when this President came before our House and, in a burst of excessive honesty, told us perceptively that we faced an axis of evil: three nations posed a great threat to the United States. His phraseology deliberately harkened back to the 1940s when we also faced a tripartite axis of evil. But what if President Roosevelt had led us in an invasion of Italy, forced Mussolini into hiding, and pretty much left it at that--ignoring what was going on in Berlin and Tokyo?

It is easier to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than it is to find a policy toward Iran here in Washington.

So I went to the Committee on Rules with two amendments. One I identified as an important amendment with 18 co-sponsors, including the gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke, including our ranking member, including senior Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on International Relations. This amendment would deprive the tyrants in Tehran of money and would provide money for those fighting for democracy.

Then I put forward a second amendment which I clearly identified as unimportant, something that could be ignored by the Committee on Rules if they chose, a mere resolution.

What did the Committee on Rules do? They killed the important amendment. They killed a chance to really discuss our policy toward Iran. And then they took the sense of Congress amendment, stripped out a little part of it, and put it before this House. They did nothing to save the House's time. We are still going to debate one of my amendments dealing with our policy toward Iran--the unimportant amendment. But the important amendment will not come before this House.

Today in Tehran terrorist acts are being planned. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism according to our State Department. Today in Tehran they plan to complete nuclear weapons within a few years. I believe those nuclear weapons will be smuggled into American cities and either exploded or used to blackmail America. When that happens our constituents will ask, what did the People's House do to prevent the empowerment of tyranny in Tehran? The answer will be, the Committee on Rules would not let us do very much of anything, but they would let us vote on sending a good luck card to the students fighting for democracy in Tehran.

Please vote against this rule and give us a chance to debate the most important foreign policy issue before us today, and that is Iran and its nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, our hearts go out to the people of Iran who are fighting valiantly for freedom and democracy. The least we could do in this bill is to provide our support and put the United States on record in favor of minority rights, women's rights, democracy, and freedom for the people of Iran.

I want to commend Senator Brownback, who authored the very words of this amendment and persuaded the Senate to adopt them and add them to their version of this bill. I want to commend the Senate for adopting these words on a voice vote.

Let me just summarize the provisions of this amendment. It contains, first, findings which state: ``Iran is neither free nor democratic. Men and women are not treated equally. Women are deprived of legal and internationally recognized rights. Religious freedom is not respected under the laws of Iran. And undemocratic institutions, such as the Guardians Council, thwart the decisions of elected leaders.''

It goes on to cite the September 2003 report of the Department of State which identified Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the year 2002, and specifically sites the provisions of that report which indicate that Iran continues to provide funding and safe haven to such terrorist groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The second part of the amendment indicates it is the policy of the United States to support transparent, full democracy in Iran; that the United States supports the rights of the Iranian people to choose their system of government; and the United States condemns the brutal treatment and torture of Iranian civilians expressing political dissent.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could adopt this amendment on voice vote, just as the Senate did, so as to eliminate a possible difference between the bodies as this bill goes to conference.

I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that I have a separate bill, H.R. 2466, that provides much more substantive support for democracy. It is called the Iran Democracy Support Act, and I would hope that on some other occasion we would be on this floor debating that bill, and I invite my colleagues to cosponsor it.

But for now let me urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge support for this amendment today. I urge my colleagues to take a look at H.R. 2466, the Iran Democracy Support Act, for consideration on another day. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2143, the Internet Gambling Prevention Act of 2003, passed by the House on June 10, 2003.

I am a strong believer of the simple principle: ``You should have to leave your house to lose your house.'' Thus, I believe we should prohibit Internet gambling except when the gambler is known to be physically present in a location the ``sovereign'' of which authorizes the particular gaming. This does take steps to prevent unlawful Internet gambling, especially gambling through websites based off- shore, outside of the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States.

During consideration of H.R. 2143, I voted for the Sensenbrenner/ Conyers/Cannon amendment which would have removed language from the bill that would have excluded transactions with businesses licensed by a state from the definition of ``bet and wager.'' There are at least two problems with this provision which unfortunately (due to the non- adoption of the said amendment) remains in the bill.

First, the provision does not assure that the gaming is legal at the location where the gambler is actually located. Second, the loophole does not provide parity for tribal governments running casinos. Because tribes that run casinos enter into compacts with the State to offer these facilities, they are not licensed by the state.

Mr. Speaker, as H.R. 2143 moves to the Senate and ultimately to a conference committee, I am hopeful that we can remove this loophole from the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2115, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan legislation authorizes $58.9 billion over four years for the activities of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and continues provisions in current law that ensure that all aviation trust fund revenues are spent only on aviation programs.

While I was pleased to join my colleagues in voting for passage of this important legislation, it is disappointing that the legislation does nothing to improve local control over flight curfews at airports. Noise generated by airports is a constant infringement on the quality of life for residents in surrounding communities.

I believe that local authorities, working in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration, should be making the decisions with respect to flight curfews at locally controlled airports. I did not submit such an amendment to the Rules Committee because I was told the Committee would not make it in order.

I hope that as this legislation proceeds to the Senate, we can work to strengthen the provisions of the legislation with respect to airport noise and to give more control to local authorities.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidable detained during rollcall votes 265, 266 and 267. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote 265 and 266 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 267.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the authors of this resolution because they recognize how important it is to protect our constitutional government, even from the possibility that perhaps hundreds of Members of this Congress might be killed by a terrorist act. We should, however, also take a look at the possibility that the death of one, two, or three individuals in line to serve as President could also undermine our constitutional government. We must protect both branches of government from unfortunate acts or terrorist aggression. That is why I strongly support this resolution and wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter that I sent out last week urging them to become cosponsors of the Presidential Succession Act of 2003.

The line of Presidential succession determines who becomes President if both the President and Vice President have died or are unable to fulfill their duties. That line should be as solid as the concrete barriers that protect our Capitol grounds. Unfortunately, that line is not. However, with a mere change in statute, not a constitutional amendment, Congress can ensure the certainty in the line of succession as well as the continuity of the Federal policies of the executive branch.

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to determine the line of succession to the Presidency following the Vice President. Congress last seriously addressed this issue when it passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Unfortunately, the 1947 act is ambiguous and we cannot afford ambiguity as to the identity or the legitimacy of the President of the United States, particularly at a time of crisis. The 1947 act is further flawed because it allows the Presidency to be shifted from one political party to the other during a 4-year term. This means that if the Vice Presidency is vacant, our stock markets and our foreign enemies will wonder whether some unfortunate event will cause a radical shift of our policies. A terrorist might see an opportunity to radically shift our policies by killing just one individual. And a partially or temporarily impaired President would be highly unlikely to either take a leave of absence under the 25th amendment or to resign permanently if that action would vest control of the executive branch in the opposite political party.

Current law provides that if the office of Vice President is vacant, the next in line is the Speaker of the House, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate. In the recent season finale of the ``West Wing,'' the President was under extreme personal stress. There was no Vice President serving. That President invoked the 25th amendment and temporarily transferred control of the executive branch to the Speaker of the House who happened to be of the opposite political party. Would that happen in real life? I would hope so, because I would hope that a President under extreme stress would take a leave of absence as provided in the 25th amendment. But in real life, a President arguably suffering from temporary impairment would hang on to the Presidency with the same tenacity that my friend Strom Thurmond held on to his Senate seat when he knew that if he resigned from the Senate he would be replaced by the appointee of a Democratic Governor.

Speaking of my friend Strom Thurmond, we should remember that just a few years ago, while Strom was in his late 90s, he was third in line to succeed to the Presidency. Does this make sense in an era of suicide assassins? In a document that I will append in the Record to my remarks here, I will point out that under some scenarios, we could have five individuals, each with a legitimate claim to be President. I will summarize it by simply saying that if we did not have a Speaker of the House, someone could claim to become President because they were serving as temporary Speaker under House rule I, clause 8, subprovision (3)(A). Someone who became Speaker of the House could then try to displace someone who had been temporary Speaker, and then we could have a President pro tem of the Senate all claiming. We could have even more scenarios.

Some will say that Presidential succession has never gotten past a Vice President, but that happened because Gerald Ford was confirmed promptly, before Richard Nixon resigned. Furthermore, in April 1865, John Wilkes Booth headed a partially successful conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln and those who were first, second and third in line to succeed him. Are we sure that al Qaeda can do no worse?

That is why I will put forward the Presidential Succession Act of 2003, which is similar to legislation I proposed in March 2001. Under it, the President would file a document with the Clerk of this House indicating whether third to succeed to the Presidency should be either the Speaker of the House or the minority leader and whether the fourth should be the Senate majority leader or the Senate minority leader. And, of course, these could be changed if control of the House or the Senate changed. More importantly, the bill would state that once someone becomes President, they serve for the rest of the 4-year term and cannot be pushed aside by someone who later becomes, say, Speaker of the House and is higher in the list. Once they begin to serve a Presidential term, they continue.

Today we will act to ensure the continuity of Congress. Later this year we should act to ensure the continuity of the executive branch. Our friends and enemies around the world and the investment community should know that similar policies will continue throughout a 4-year term and that the Presidency cannot be shifted to another party by a tragic event. More importantly, it should be absolutely clear as to who is legitimate President of the United States. We need to act this year.

[From the Roll Call, May 21, 2003]

Act Now To Ensure Smooth Succession to Presidency

(By Rep. Brad Sherman)

In the post-Sept. 11, 2001, reality, we have seen military

guards with M-16s patrol the Capitol and anti-aircraft

artillery stationed around national monuments. It is no

mystery that terrorists actively seek to interrupt our

constitutional democracy.

The line of presidential succession, which determines who

becomes president if both the president and vice president

have died or are otherwise unable to carry out their duties,

should be as solid as the concrete barriers lining the

Capitol grounds. It is not. However, with a change in

statute--not a constitutional amendment--Congress can ensure

certainty in the line of successors, as well as continuity of

federal policies.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress

to determine the line of succession to the presidency

following the vice president. Congress last visited this

issue seriously when it passed the Presidential Succession

Act of 1947. Unfortunately, the 1947

act us ambiguous and we cannot afford ambiguity as to the

identity and legitimacy of the president, particularly at a

time of crisis.

The 1974 act is further flawed because it allows the

presidency to be shifted to an opposing political party. This

means if the vice presidency is vacant, our stock markets and

foreign enemies will wonder whether an unfortunate event will

result in a radical shift in policies; a terrorist might see

an ``opportunity'' to radically shift our policies; and a

partially or temporarily impaired president would think twice

about taking a leave of absence under the 25th Amendment, or

resigning, if either action would out the other party in

control of all executive departments. Finally, third in the

current line of successions is the President Pro Tem, a

ceremonial position normally held by the longest-serving

member of the Senate majority.

Current law provides that if the office of the vice

president is vacant, the next in line is the Speaker,

followed by the President Pro Tem. The recent ``West Wing''

season final demonstrated how a president, under extreme

duress could, at a time when there was no vice president,

invoke the 25th Amendment and temporarily transfer control of

the White House to a Speaker of the opposite political party.

In real life, it is more likely that a president arguably

suffering from temporary impairment would hang on to the

presidency with the same tenacity that former Sen. Strom

Thurmond (R-S.C.) held on to his seat at a time when his

resignation would have handed his seat to an appointee of a

Democratic governor.

Speaking of Thurmond, we should remember that just a few

years ago, while in his late 90s, he was third in line for

the presidency. Does this make sense in an era of suicide-

assassins?

Here is a hypothetical designed to illustrate all the

ambiguities of the 1947 act. The office of vice president,

Speaker and President Pro Tem are all vacant. The president

has nominated Ms. Smith to the new vice president, and he

awaits her confirmation hearings under the 25th Amendment.

The House and the Senate have adjourned for the year, though

Mr. Jones is serving as ``temporary House Speaker'' pursuant

to House rule 1, clause 8 (3)(A). Now, imagine that the

president dies.

Does Mr. Jones, the temporary Speaker, become president?

Probably not, but we're not sure. In all probability, the

secretary of State becomes acting president. But assume the

House then reconvenes and elects a Speaker. Does that new

Speaker then push aside the secretary of State and become the

new president? What if the Senate elects a new President Pro

Tem before the House elects a new Speaker? And what if Ms.

Smith makes it through her vice presidential confirmation

hearings--does she push aside whoever is then serving as

president? Under this scenario, and under the ambiguity of

the 1947 act, all five of the following could claim the

presidency: Ms. Smith, Mr. Jones, the President Pro Tem, the

newly elected Speaker and the secretary of State. Other, less

contrived scenarios could create three or four claimants to

the presidency. Even two plausible claimants to the White

House is one too many.

Some will say that presidential succession has never gotten

past a vice president, in part because Gerald Ford was

confirmed promptly, before Richard Nixon resigned. But Sept.

11 shows that what is unlikely to occur naturally may well

occur. In April 1865, John Wilkes Booth headed a partially

successful conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham

Lincoln and those who stood first, second and third in line

to succeed him. Are we sure that al Qaeda can do no worse?

Next month, I will introduce the Presidential Succession

Act of 2003, which is similar to legislation I introduced in

March 2001. Under this legislation, the president will file

an official document with the Clerk of the House designating,

after the vice president, the next person in line of

succession as either the Speaker or the House Minority

Leader. Similarly, the president would file instructions with

the Secretary of the Senate, designating the third in line as

either the Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader. (These

designations can be revised if the majority becomes the

minority.) The bill will further ensure certainty in

presidential succession by clearly providing that if someone

succeeds to the presidency, that person shall continue to

serve until the end of the presidential term.

Our friends and enemies around the world, as well as the

investment community, should know that similar policies will

continue throughout a four-year term, and that the presidency

will not be shifted to the other party by a tragic event.

More importantly, the law should be absolutely clear so that

whoever serves as president, particularly at a time of

crisis, has unquestioned legitimacy. By acting now we can

accomplish these ends. Or, we can just put this off until a

problem arises.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose a rule that does not allow the House to consider providing working families with the child care credit. The current situation imposes the injury of denying these working families $400 that they need and then adds the insult of telling these families that they are not taxpayers, so they do not deserve any tax relief. Of course, looking at their paycheck stubs, they see the taxes they are paying.

Allowing corporations to avoid American taxes just by renting a hotel in the Bahamas, $8 billion; allowing millionaires to pay virtually nothing on their dividend income, $80 billion;

eliminating the estate tax even on the largest estates, $138 billion; telling working families that they do not deserve relief and that they are not taxpayers, that is priceless.

There are some things campaign contributions just will not buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard, accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas. Members will want to get the Deficit Express card, now that the Republican Congress has increased the credit limit to $12 trillion. The Deficit Express card? Do not leave the House without it.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush recession continues, and this job killer bill ensures that it will continue to continue. It imposes additional deficits on our budget and additional debt on the American people. It imposes higher interest rates on the American people. It will impose upon our teachers and our firefighters layoffs at a time when we need more jobs in the economy, because it virtually ensures that we will provide only very limited and inadequate aid to our States and cities that are falling on hard times right now.

If we look at the details, we become aware that this bill, whatever the arguments that were made in favor of it, is nothing more than an effort to hand as much cash as possible to the Bush class. We are told that it is going to help investments, but when we look at the details, we discover otherwise. Three details: It is temporary, it provides aid to children with huge trust funds, and it provides equal encouragement to invest in foreign corporations as domestic corporations.

At least that is what I am told orally about a bill that, in theory, has not been written yet but in fact is out in the press now.

What about it being temporary? The idea was that we were not just going to give a windfall to people who had already invested in stocks but that we were going to encourage people to invest more. Well, wait a minute. Municipal bonds are a nice investment for tax-free income. But who would buy a municipal bond today if 5 years from now all the income was going to be subject to tax? Nobody is going to invest in stocks long term because of a short-term window in which the dividends are tax free. Sure, if they already own the stock, they will enjoy not paying taxes.

Second, I am told that these same benefits are available to investments in foreign corporations. So if you invest in the Chinese people's low-wage corporation, you pay no American tax at the corporate level, of course, and no American tax at the domestic level, or a very low tax.

Finally, if you transfer half a million bucks worth of Rolls Royce stock to your 14-year-old daughter, in a couple of years she will be eligible to receive the dividends on that stock virtually tax free and then go out and buy a Rolls Royce with the dividend income. This is the Rolls Royce Investment Act, or I like to call it the Rolls Royce for Buffy Act.

The Bush recession continues, and this bill is carefully crafted to make sure it continues.

Mr. Speaker, this job-killer bill will lead to a continuation of the Bush recession. We are told we need to end the double taxation of corporate income, but one-third of corporate income earned by U.S. corporations is not even subject to corporate tax because of the loopholes in that tax. But, of course, their new provision applies to foreign corporations. Their income is not even taxed once.

We are told this is going to encourage investment in new issues of corporate stock. But it is a temporary provision, so who is going to buy corporate stock, just to find the taxes go up on the dividends? But if it does encourage investment, it will encourage investment of American capital in foreign corporations issuing stock. Those foreign corporations are paying 12 cents an hour to their employees and stealing our jobs.

We are told the low zero percent rate or 5 percent rate will apply to working families. But working families, if they own stock at all, own it in their 401(k) plans that are unaffected by this bill. In fact, when the dividend income is paid out, it is subject to a high rate of tax. The big beneficiaries of that zero percent rate will be rich kids with trust funds earning $10,000 or $20,000 of dividend income and paying zero percent tax.

The corporate tax rate, once you move the corporation to the Bahamas, zero percent.

Individual income taxes on dividends from the Bahamas corporation, 15 percent.

Individual income tax when the stock is held by a trust for rich kids, zero percent.

Knowing that working families are paying about 30 percent tax, FICA and income tax, on their wages--priceless.

There are some things campaign contributions just can't buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard. Accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas.

And you will want to get the Deficit Express Card, now that the Senate has increased the credit limit by another $981 billion. The Deficit Express Card: Do not leave the House without it.

Mr. Speaker, this job-killer bill will lead to a continuation of the Bush recession.

We are told we need to end the double taxation of corporate income, but one-third of corporate income earned by U.S. corporations is not even subject to corporate tax because of the loopholes in that tax. But, of course, their new provision applies to foreign corporations. Their income is not even taxed once.

We are told this is going to encourage investment in newly issued corporate stock. But the dividend exclusion provision is a temporary provision, so who is going to buy corporate stock, just to find the taxes go up on the dividends? But if it does encourage investment, it will encourage investment of American capital in foreign corporations issuing stock. Those foreign corporations are paying 12 cents an hour to their employees and stealing American jobs.

We are told the low zero percent rate or 5 percent rate on dividend income will apply to working families. But working families, if they own stock at all, own it in their 401(k) plans, and those plans are unaffected by this bill. In fact, even if we pass this bill, when the dividend income is paid out of a 401(k) it will be subject to a high rate of tax. The big beneficiaries of the 5 percent or zero percent rate on dividend, will be rich kids with trust funds earning $10,000 or $20,000 of dividend income and paying virtually no tax.

The corporate tax rate, once you move the corporation to the Bahamas, zero percent.

Individual income taxes on dividends from the Bahamas corporation, 15 percent.

Individual income tax when the stock is held by a trust for rich kids, zero percent.

Knowing that working families are paying about 30 percent tax, FICA and income tax, on their wages--Priceless.

There are some things campaign contributions just can't buy. For everything else, there is Republicard. Accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas.

And you will want to get the Deficit Express Card, now that the Senate has increased the credit limit by another $981 billion. The Deficit Express Card: Do not leave the House without it.

Mr. Speaker, I came down here to talk about taxes, but first

let me talk about Texas. All Americans must unite against terrorism, and we did that. We passed the PATRIOT Act. We provided resources for the Department of Homeland Security. But now we discover the war on terrorism is a war on Democrats. This will divide America, and that is good for the terrorists.

How many Americans will lose their lives because we in this House cannot empower the Department of Homeland Security because that Department now seems bent on a coverup of its use of its great powers to pervert American democracy? Only a release of the tapes can reunite America behind the Department of Homeland Security. A failure to release those tapes breaks up American unity, impairs our security, and raises questions about what is there to cover up, questions like what did they know and when did they know it?

Let us unite America behind the war against terrorism. Let us release the tapes.

Now let us talk about taxes. The Bush recession continues. Republicans continue to use their political power to adopt job-killer policies, which means the Bush recession will continue to continue. The most obvious job-killer policy is the dividend exclusion provision included in the bill passed by the Senate.

Now, every major tax provision has both positive and negative effects on our economy, and Republican after Republican has come down to this floor to talk about the rather modest economic benefits of excluding dividends from taxation.

We Democrats have been distracted. We have been so incensed that this dividend exclusion provision gives almost all its benefits to the wealthiest that we forgot to point out it is also a job killer.

Yes, this is a provision that provides 50 percent of its benefits to the richest 1 percent of Americans and provides 1 percent of its benefits to the 50 percent of Americans at the bottom and in the middle. It represents class warfare against working families. It seems to be inspired to allow the wealthiest in our country to buy this new automobile from Mercedes Benz, the Maybach. It is only $350,000, or roughly the benefit to those with an income of $1 million over a 3\1/ 2\-year period from this provision.

So we got so distracted by how incensed we were that we forgot to mention it is a job-killer provision.

Let me illustrate that. Let us say there was a proposal to drop $25 billion from helicopters. There would be a positive effect. Those who supported the programs from the other side of the aisle could come down here and say, hey, it is going to stimulate the economy, putting money in the hands of somebody. But it would be obvious that 25 or $50 billion dropped from helicopters would also hurt our economy, because it would drive up interest rates, drive up the deficit and deprive this House of the opportunity to help our States keep teachers and law enforcement officers employed. They are being laid off in so many States.

So dropping money from a helicopter is ultimately a job-killer proposal.

The dividend exclusion has a smaller positive economic benefit and a larger economic harm than dropping money from helicopters, because at least the people who would catch money from helicopters would spend the money in America on the necessities of life, whereas the dividend exclusion tends to go to those who would spend money chiefly on luxury imports like the Maybach from Mercedes Benz, only $350,000.

The dividend exclusion was justified under the idea that we are going to put money in corporate treasuries because people were going to buy stock, so the first effect of this dividend exclusion is that more dividends are paid. That takes money out of treasuries and deprives corporations of the opportunity to buy plants and equipment. But at least it provided some reason, perhaps, for people to buy stock, to put money into corporate treasuries and they go out and buy plants and equipment.

But now the Senate has changed it. Now the new provision provides a half exclusion for dividends paid in 2003, a full exclusion for dividends paid in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and back to full taxation in 2007.

What does that mean? First, it means 8 months of an economic freeze. For 8 months, the corporations will not pay any dividends, they are going to be half taxable, when they can wait until January of next year. They cannot invest this cash because they are going to need it to pay the big dividend in January. They cannot distribute it because it is subject to half taxation. It is locked up, hurting our economy tremendously by freezing the very cash that we need to put into the economy.

Then what happens after that? In 2004, 2005, 2006, huge dividends and no investment in the economy. But why would anybody buy stock because of a provision that is going to exempt dividends for a few years? Would Members buy a municipal bond that was tax-free for a few years and then was going to be subject to full tax?

This means no new investment except in Germany, where they will need a new line to build more copies of the Maybach. That will be the only investment caused by this provision. The Bush recession continues, and job-killer policies like the dividend provision in the Senate bill ensure that the Bush recession will continue to continue.