Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and I rise to proudly recognize and honor over 78,000 Asian Pacific Americans who live in my 7th Congressional District in Washington State. They are the largest minority group in my district, embracing over 13 percent of the population. They are Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, as well as other Asian American cultures. Their contributions have helped to make Seattle a richly textured weave of cultures and people. We all benefit as a result.

Beginning in the late 19th century, Asian Americans immigrated to the United States to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families. Many faced prejudice, racial injustice, and discrimination, but these new immigrants believed in America, and they made our Nation stronger by fighting for American values like equality. As our Nation again debates the importance and role of immigration in the early 21st Century, we should consider the contributions that Asian-Americans have made, and continue to make, to our Nation, becoming leaders in public and social service, business and industry.

In Seattle, I am proud to have introduced the legislation that renamed a United States Courthouse as the William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse in honor of a Japanese American who was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his courage under fire in World War II. Mr. Nakamura made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the country he loved, an honor made more poignant by the fact that William and his family were forcibly relocated to a federal internment camp at the beginning of the war.

Today, we proudly celebrate Asian Pacific American culture and heritage, from the Vietnamese Tet in Seattle Lunar New Year celebration to other local cultural festivals. We also honor Asian Pacific Americans by preserving the ethnic heritage of our citizens. Places like the Wing Luke Asian Museum, the Seattle Asian Art Museum, the Filipino American National Historical Society, and Densho: The Japanese American Legacy Project keep us in touch with the roots of our neighbors.

Our pride in and recognition of many Asian American role models has earned Washington State a global awareness. Just last month Chinese President Hu Jintao chose Seattle for his inaugural visit to the United States as head of state, touring a Boeing plant and Microsoft headquarters and noting the ``good cooperative relations'' between China and Washington

State. One out of every four jobs in Washington State is directly tied to international trade, and we have a strong and growing trading relationship with the Asia Pacific region. This relationship has been established, expanded, and nurtured largely through cultural awareness first developed in the region by Asian-American immigrants. We all benefit from the contributions Asian Pacific Americans make to our community and country.

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is a celebration of the American spirit. We are a nation of immigrants, and by honoring Asian Pacific Americans, we honor all cultures.

Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that Jim McDermott rises to support this President, but that is precisely what I am doing now. The President does not want his hands tied by H.R. 4681. I completely agree. It was taken off the calendar today, and it ought to stay off the calendar.

H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, will not make Israel safer, will not meet the urgent humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people, and will not give our diplomats the tools they need to help find a path to peace in the Mideast.

For all of these reasons, I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider. I believe in diplomacy as a means to correct injustice around the world. I believe gifted diplomats can accomplish as much with words and deeds as the military can with guns and soldiers.

There is no question that the United States must take all appropriate steps to ensure that terrorists like Hamas are denied access to our financial aid. Hamas is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis before coming to power.

Since then, they have neither renounced violence nor recognized Israel. This is unacceptable.

By all means, we must deny Hamas dollars that would buy hatred, but we must remember that Hamas and the Palestinian people are not one and the same.

Even as we deny any and all assistance to Hamas, we must not hurt those Palestinians who are working for peace. If we fail to support them, I have no doubt that Israel will pay the ultimate price: more instability in the West Bank and Gaza, more desperation, and more terrorism.

America's leadership is on the line in the Middle East, and more instability is something we need to avoid. We still have 130,000 American soldiers in harm's way in Iraq; we can't afford to make any more poor choices related to that region. But, that's what we will do if we pass this bill.

It doesn't make sense for the United States to limit political and economic aid to moderates, like Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

He and others have met our requirements by recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and terrorism against Israel, and accepting all previously signed Israeli-Palestinian agreements. What happens if we turn our back on leaders trying to heal a millennium of hate?

And what can we expect if we turn our backs on the real and growing humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people? It doesn't make sense to put restrictions on funding the NGOs that provide the Palestinian people with hospitals and schools.

As a medical doctor, I am gravely concerned about the fate of millions of innocent Palestinians who rely on international aid for food, health care, and for developing their economy and businesses.

Recent news reports say that international sanctions are preventing hospitals in Gaza from providing dialysis machines for patients, and they may not be able to supply immunizations to children.

The World Health Organization sees a ``rapid decline of the public health system . . . towards a possible collapse.'' This bill will only make the already dire situation even worse. As a doctor I took an oath to heal. As a nation, we took an oath to lead.

Allowing innocent Palestinians to go hungry, while denying them medical treatment cannot possibly correct injustice, or lead to peace.

Passing this bill will be seen as anti-Palestinian, and the resulting chaos and animosity can only threaten the relative calm that Israel has seen in recent months.

Many of the Israeli leaders I've spoken to, think this bill goes too far by punishing all Palestinians, not just Hamas. They understand that a radicalized population will show more support for Hamas, not less.

During a recent trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, I saw how both sides deeply yearn for peace. And I saw firsthand how they need the United States to do all it can to help them make peace.

The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act will make this task enormously difficult.

The harsh restrictions, and cutting off contacts with moderate Palestinians, will severely complicate our ability to assume an active role in helping both sides resolve the conflict.

If we cannot engage with moderates, and those trying to develop the Palestinian economy and build civil society, we forfeit our ability to nurture and strengthen the positive elements in Palestine.

The President and State Department must have the utmost flexibility to help moderate Palestinians, to quickly get economic and humanitarian aid to places that need it, like hospitals and health clinics, and helps prevent the resumption of terrorism.

We need to isolate and weaken Hamas, and hopefully their tenure at the head of the PA will be a short one. But if we cannot distinguish between Hamas and the majority of the Palestinian people, we cannot possibly expect to have a role in creating what comes next.

Israelis and Palestinians realize that in the end, their fates are tied. It's time to help the majorities on both sides reach their mutual goal--a peaceful two-state solution--rather than standing in the way by punishing one side.

While the bill has been pulled from the calendar, that's only temporary. I urge the majority to leave it off the table indefinitely.

Give our State Department an opportunity to nurture peace, or we will surely have to ask our military to counter more terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, some people say this is a do-nothing Congress. They are wrong. This is the rubber-stamp Congress. Every Member of the Republican side is right now looking through his office for where is his rubber stamp, because this is one of the days when they come over here and rubber-stamp the President's tax cuts.

The 13th page of the New York Times today carries the fact that the tax cut for the top 10 percent, 82 percent of the $69 billion goes to the top 10 percent.

Now, that is not do-nothing, that is just forgetting the other 90 percent in this country. And when a decent period has passed by, they are going to come out here and raise the debt limit again. That is in the paper today as well. They raised it in March, and they have given so much away and dug us so deep in debt that they are going to be out here doing it again.

There is nothing in what we will do today that is useful for anybody who is at the middle class or below. This is all for the top 10 percent. That is all these people are for. The time is coming for change in November.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican rubber-stamp Congress is in session. Republicans are going to rubber stamp the last act of the budget. The first act was in December when the Republicans took from the poor, the disadvantaged and the foster kids, the people on food stamps and students trying to get a student loan.

The Republicans emptied one Christmas stocking, but they thought it would be unseemly to immediately give it to the rich right in front of the poor. So they waited and they waited and they waited, and finally, today, they think the people have forgotten and gone to sleep. So they are going to give it to the rich.

The party of 1 percent is going to get a reward. The millionaires are going to get a windfall for which they did nothing except attend fund- raisers. Every millionaire will get a windfall of $41,000. The average American makes exactly that during a year. He will get $16. Millionaires, $41,000; ordinary people, $16.

Those are real numbers, no matter what they say, and that means it is reward the rich, ignore the poor. That is the Republican rubber stamp of the President's views on the world.

They say it will increase savings. The savings rate in this country is zero. In fact, it is less than zero. Ninety-nine percent of the people in this country are not better off, only the 1 percent who get the rubber stamp today; and the rest of America is forced to choose between filling the gas tank and putting food in the refrigerator.

Now, they all brought their rubber stamps today, but what they have not told you, and I will enter into the Record at this point the article from The Washington Post from May 9.

[From washingtonpost.com, May 9, 2006]

Another Possible Bump to the Debt Ceiling

(By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray)

A $2.7 trillion budget plan pending before the House would

raise the federal debt ceiling to nearly $10 trillion, less

than two months after Congress last raised the federal

government's borrowing limit.

The provision--buried on page 121 of the 151-page budget

blueprint--serves as a backdrop to congressional action this

week. House leaders hope to try once again to pass a budget

plan for fiscal 2007, a month after a revolt by House

Republican moderates and Appropriations Committee members

forced leaders to pull the plan.

Leaders also hope to pass a package of tax-cut extensions

that would cost the Treasury $70 billion over the next five

years. They would then turn Thursday to a $513 billion

defense policy bill that would block President Bush's request

to raise health-care fees and co-payments for service members

and their families.

In recent days, Congress has received some good news on the

budget front. A surge of tax revenues this spring, sparked by

economic growth, prompted the Congressional Budget Office

last Thursday to revise its 2006 deficit forecast from around

$370 billion to as low as $300 billion. But the federal debt

keeps climbing because of continued deficit spending and the

government's insatiable borrowing from the Social Security

trust fund. With passage of the budget, the House will have

raised the federal borrowing limit by an additional $653

billion, to $9.62 trillion. It would be the fifth debt-

ceiling increase in recent years, after boosts of $450

billion in 2002, a record $984 billion in 2003, $800 billion

in 2004 and $653 billion in March. When Bush took office, the

statutory borrowing limit stood at $5.95 trillion.

Democrats will harp on those statistics not only in the

budget debate but also when the House takes up tax

legislation expected to finally emerge from House-Senate

negotiations today. The legislation would extend for two

years the deep cuts to tax rates on dividends and capital

gains that Congress approved in 2003. It would also slow for

one year the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a

parallel income tax system designed to hit affluent but

increasingly pinching the middle class.

Although the debate will be rancorous, the tax measure is

expected to pass by a comfortable margin. The budget vote

will be closer. House leaders had to pull the budget plan

from the floor in April, after moderate Republicans balked at

planned cuts to health and education programs and

appropriators objected to limits on home district pet

projects--known as earmarks--and a provision that would

limit emergency spending for natural disasters to about

$14 3 billion a year.

Appropriators have come on board, Appropriations Committee

spokesman John Scofield said. GOP leaders and committee

chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) tried to win moderate support

last week by cutting $4 billion from the president's defense

spending request and adding that money to labor, health and

education programs. But some moderates are still holding out.

``I expect they do not have the votes right now,'' said

Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a leader of the balking

moderates. ``Could they get the votes by the end of the week?

I'd give it a 50-50 chance.''

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan is doing a bad job, and it is doing a worse job of helping those who need the help most. I was down in the lunchroom in the Longworth Building, and one of the cashiers stopped me and said can you explain to me how this works? She said, I figured out what it is going to cost me to join, and I can save more money by going to Costco. My drugs will cost less in Costco. If you added it all up, I am going to be better off staying out of the program and buying my drugs at Costco.

Now, this program was faulty in its inception, and of the millions of people on Medicare who still haven't signed up, 85 percent of them are poor enough to qualify for the low income subsidy. When this bill was in the Ways and Means Committee, we offered the opportunity to the chairman to sign up these poor people at the beginning, automatically, because they are low income. We know what their income is. They are not going to get rich all of a sudden. But, no, we are going to let them flop around out there trying to figure out this complicated program.

Now, how could we have let it happen? Well, haven't the Republicans been telling us that the Medicare drug benefit was intended to help those most in need, those eligible for low income subsidy?

They turned down, the author of this turned down tonight Mr. Stark's offer to rewrite this thing and get all these people in.

But that is not what really went on here. Just encouraging people or threatening or, as the gentleman from the Energy and Commerce Committee says, keeping the pressure on old people is not sufficient. That is not humane public policy. You ought to be ashamed of saying something like that. We want to pressure.

My mother is 96 years old. I don't need you pressuring my mother on this drug plan if she can't figure it out. Now the low income beneficiaries are twice as likely to have health problems, mental problems or live in a nursing home. Many have difficulty with English. You can't just stand out here and say, hey, folks, sign up, sign up. They can't figure out what to do.

You have made it so complicated so that they wouldn't sign up. That is what you did. You wanted the ones who were most needy to be unable to figure out how the plan would work so they could be left out.

Now, just to show what a warm heart you have, you slap a 7 percent penalty on them for the rest of their life. You say to them, if you don't sign up by the 15th of May, you can't sign up for 6 months, and it is going to cost you 1 percent a month for every month you don't sign up. That kind of loving treatment is, in my view, exactly what this program does not need.

It is a mess, this is a bad resolution. We will all probably, you know, vote

for it. But when you let the drug companies write the bill, it was never meant to work for ordinary people.

The program needs time to find these people and help them.

Blindly adhering to the May 15th deadline, just five days away, dramatically penalizes many seniors who have not signed up.

This program has been a mess from the start.

If Republicans are serious about helping seniors, we must extend the deadline for enrolling, remove the penalties for not signing up, and streamline the procedures, so that our most distinguished citizens can actually understand this.

Just because Republicans let big drug companies help write the legislation doesn't mean we are helpless to take action.

Republicans were wrong about the real cost of this program. Now they are wrong when they say they want to help seniors.

An artificial deadline won't help seniors. A real prescription drug benefit will.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, it is awfully cold in Washington, D.C. these days, and the arrival of spring is not going to change the frigid temperature beginning to grip the Nation's Capital.

No matter how much we stand in the bright sunlight, Washington, D.C. is fast becoming a cold, cold place under this President and administration.

The Big Chill is on and it is becoming an ice age for the ``People's- Right-to-Know.''

The New York Times and The Washington Post recently won Pulitzer Prizes for breaking through the administration's secrecy to inform the American people about secret prisons and secret wiretapping.

In response, the administration wants journalism stopped. It just gets in the way of the administration telling people only what they want them to know.

Maintaining this veil of secrecy is so important that the administration directed the Attorney General to see if he might invoke the 1917 Espionage Act as a way to make the first amendment disappear. By controlling what you know, they hope to control what you think.

It is the solution to their Iraq dilemma. You don't have to mislead the people, as the President did, if the people simply don't know anything at all. That is what this assault on free speech is all about.

I seek permission to enter into the Record an editorial promoted by the Washington Times by Nat Hentoff entitled ``Chilling Free Speech.''

The President and his administration are doing everything possible to impose censorship. They know that secrecy is the fastest, most effective way to silence dissent.

If the American people know what they are doing, the American people could make them accountable for what they are doing. But there is no accountability for their actions, so they hide them under a blanket of secrecy.

The President cried ``shameful'' that the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism had reunited the American people with the truth about secret prisons and secret wiretapping ordered by the President and his administration.

In other words, the truth made it out into the open, and that was not part of their plan. The only way to account for it was to attack those responsible for telling us. It is the centerpiece of the

Republican playbook. Attack anyone who disagrees. I know those tactics firsthand.

But the cracks are beginning to show in the Republican wall of silent acquiescence.

A rubber stamp is still being used in this Congress by the Republicans, but many of my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, know that their mandatory vote at the discretion of the President is not in the best interest of the American people, and the people are beginning to listen to other voices, when they can hear them above the clatter of the Republican noise machine. Here is the proof.

David Wise in the Los Angeles Times recently wrote an article entitled, ``Secrecy's Shadow Falls on Washington.'' I ask permission to enter this article in the Record. To help the American people understand how pervasive secrecy in the administration is, let me read a short excerpt from Mr. Wise's article, quote, ``The National Archives and Records Administration have been embarrassed by the revelation that at least 55,000 documents formerly available to researchers have been withdrawn and reclassified under secret agreements with the military and the CIA. The deals were so secretive that the documents simply disappeared from the shelves.'' That is the end of the quote.

At least temporarily the head of the National Archives has suspended the disappearance of American history. It doesn't mean the threat has passed; it just means someone is fighting to keep America free. We have two choices, the free flow of information or the outright control of information. America is strong because of the protections within the free flow of information. It is guaranteed by the first amendment.

But the President and his majority want to tell you what to think through the outright control of the information. Geoffrey Stone, author and law professor at the University of Chicago wrote an article in the New York Times the other day called, ``Scared of Scoops.'' Again, I ask to enter it in the Record.

As the writer points out, the administration's primary tactic is intimidation. When in doubt, they try to make you afraid. When unpopular, they try to make you afraid. When they are losing their hold on power because of their record, they tend to make you afraid. The only reason you know this President has no energy policy for America is because he can't hide the price of gasoline at the pumps. He would make it a secret if he could.

Don't be surprised if the President tries to classify the price of gasoline as a national security matter. That is his method of accountability to the American people. None. In a Nation where free speech is the last defense against absolute power, they don't want you to know because the more you know, the worse they look.

[From the Washington Times, May 8, 2006.]

Chilling Free Speech

(By Nat Hentoff)

Beyond the firing of CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy for

leaking classified information to the press is a much larger

story of the administration's increasing investigation of

other such press leaks as a possible prelude to an American

version of Britain's stringent Official Secrets Act. In

February, CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate

Intelligence Committee of the need for a grand jury

investigation including reporters who receive these leaks.

The charge against Miss McCarthy, which she denies, is that

she was a source of highly classified information for Dana

Priest's report in The Washington Post on CIA secret prisons

in Eastern Europe. Miss Priest, a 2006 winner of a Pulitzer

award for the story, has been writing about the CIA's ``black

sites'' since late 2002; and Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of

the Senate Intelligence Committee, continually refuses to

authorize an investigation of the CIA's violations of

American and international laws in its prisons wholly hidden

from our rule of law.

Miss Priest is already subject to a Justice Department

investigation, as are New York Times reporters James Risen

and Eric Lichtblau for their disclosure of the president's

secret approval of the National Security Agency's warrantless

surveillance of Americans. (Those reporters have also

received Pulitzers this year, despite the president's

characterization of their reporting as ``shameful.'')

The administration's position has been clearly stated by

FBI spokesman Bill Carter (The Washington Post, April 19):

``Under the law, no private person (including journalists)

may possess classified documents that were illegally provided

to them. These documents remain the property of the

government.''

The law Mr. Carter cited is this administration's expansion

of the Espionage Act of 1917, which is now before the courts

in a case that can greatly diminish the First Amendment

rights of the press--and the right of Americans to receive

information about such lawless government practices as the

CIA's secret interrogation centers and the president's

violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in

unleashing the National Security Agency.

This espionage case--United States of America v. Lawrence

Anthony Franklin, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman--is the

first in which the federal government is charging violations

of the Espionage Act by American citizens--who are not

government officials--for being involved in what until now

have been regarded as First Amendment-protected activities

engaged in by hundreds of American journalists.

Messrs. Rosen and Weissman, former staff members of the

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--who have

since been fired--are accused of receiving classified

information from Defense Department analyst Franklin

regarding U.S. government Middle East and terrorism strategy.

Messrs. Rosen and Weissman are charged with then providing

that classified information to an Israeli diplomat--and a

journalist.

Government official Franklin has pleaded guilty and been

sentenced to prison. But defense attorneys for Rosen and

Weissman declare: ``Never (until now) has a lobbyist,

reporter or any other nongovernment employee been charged . .

. for receiving oral information the government alleges to be

national-defense material as part of that (accused) person's

normal First Amendment-protected activities.''

In an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia, the Reporters Committee for the

Freedom of the Press (with which I am affiliated) says:

``These charges potentially eviscerate the primary function

of journalism--to gather and publicize information of public

concern--particularly where the most valuable information to

the public is information that the government wants to

conceal'' so that the public cannot ``participate in and

serve as a check on the government.'' (That's why the First

Amendment's freedom of the press was added to the

Constitution in 1791.)

But the judge now hearing this espionage case, T.S. Ellis

III, already said in March: ``Persons who come into

unauthorized possession of classified information must abide

by the law. That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists,

professors, whatever.'' Recently, the judge appears to be

backing off.

However he decides, and it's uncertain, Steven Aftergood--

head of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation

of American Scientists--says: ``To make a crime of the kind

of conversations Rosen and Weissman had with Franklin over

lunch would not be surprising in the People's Republic of

China. But it's utterly foreign to the American political

system.'' (This censorship of the press was cut out of the

Espionage Act of 1917.)

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Bush administration on

this case, we will, as Mr. Aftergood says, have to build many

more jails--and disarm the First Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, America lost one of its best and brightest intellects and public servants in recent days with the death of John Kenneth Galbraith.

To say that Professor Galbraith understood economics is like saying Albert Einstein was good at arithmetic.

Ken Galbraith pioneered economic theories that transcended numbers, products, and nations, because he added people into the equation.

He recognized and helped the whole world understand that market forces alone could not be anonymous engines of economic activity. There was more at stake--people, and more to consider--policy, in a nation's economic growth and development.

If you stop and think about it, every parent has told a child at one time or another that there are consequences to their actions; John Kenneth Galbraith helped nations understand that there are consequences to economic actions.

Mr. Galbraith's impact on modern economic theory can be seen in the books he authored including The Affluent Society and New Industrial State. In all, his astonishing contributions as a world-renowned economist and professor span more than five decades.

But, there is so much more to his life and contributions to the American people.

John Kenneth Galbraith served his country as a Presidential advisor and ambassador to India.

He helped FDR implement the New Deal, serving in his administration. He also served President John F. Kennedy, among others.

Mr. Galbraith walked among giants, because he too was a giant--in intellect, heart, and commitment to his country.

If ever there was a single individual who embodied the positive change he wanted to see, it was John Kenneth Galbraith.

I was privileged to know him in my role as President of ADA, Americans for Democratic Action.

When liberal activists gathered in January 1947 at the Willard Hotel to form Americans for Democratic Action, Ken was there to inspire and to lead. He never stopped doing either.

From the beginning, Professor Galbraith was ADA's guiding light--both philosophically and as a pragmatic politician.

As its president, he led ADA during the Vietnam War to take a stand and become the first national organization to oppose the last fatally flawed war this country waged.

His participation in ADA continued as an ADA national board member, national convention speaker and author of the pithy Galbraithian letters, some of which were private and many of which attracted members to this organization which he held so dear.

I received a personal note from him just recently. John Kenneth Galbraith was that kind of person; he never stopped thinking, and feeling, and interacting, even as his own health was failing.

Just a few weeks ago, as he lay bedridden, he met with an ADA board member to discuss ways to further the goals and objectives of the organization.

John Kenneth Galbraith was nothing short of astonishing and his loss to us and to the world is enormous.

His legacy will be sustained by the countless people he inspired, through his sons--including Jamie, who serves on ADA's national board-- and through the Galbraith Fellows,

who will continue to work in the public service in his memory.

To say that John Kenneth Galbraith will be sorely missed is an understatement of the highest order.

What I am proud to say is that I knew this great American, and this institution can honor his memory by ensuring that his voice resonates throughout America for all time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of talk out here a little earlier about honesty in motions on the floor. I want to report that there has been some honesty not in the floor but to the press by the majority leader. The majority leader has finally run up the white flag. The Republicans have capitulated; they have given up. Today's Roll Call says, the majority leader says we will be here until Christmas.

Now, that is from someone who is in charge of the House that has not passed the tax reconciliation bill from the last budget that started on October 1, 2005. That is 7 months ago. And the Republicans can't run a two-car funeral. They can pass the cuts, but they can't deal with the tax bill. If you look on the list that they offer for the next session next week, possible legislation, the Tax Reconciliation Act.

Every year starts the same here. January 1, we have until April 15 to pass a budget. Then the Budget chairman goes over there, and he did it again this year, and they had this big hoo-haw and they have all kinds and they flap their arms, but they haven't passed a budget.

The law says the budget has to be in place by April 15. Well, we are about 3 weeks past that now, and if you look in the orders for next week, there it is: possible legislation, possible budget resolution.

This country is running without a budget. The Republicans do not want a budget because they don't want people to really know what this is costing. Well, what about the hole that they are digging for the American people and their children and their grandchildren? In the 6 years that the Republicans have been in charge of this House, we have raised the debt limit $3 trillion.

These are fiscal conservatives. You know, they are very careful with nickels and dimes. They are spending like they had all the money in the world and they never had to think about paying their credit card. Well, obviously they don't intend to pay with their credit card because they can't put the tax reconciliation bill, together which

is how you pay for the credit card. No, they are going to pass it on to their children and their kids.

Now, if the average citizen in this country had a credit card and said, ``You know, I am just going to spend on this credit card and spend on it, and I am never going to pay on it. What I am going to do is, when I die, I am going to will it to my son or my daughter, or my grandchildren,'' we would think they were the most irresponsible human beings imaginable. And yet that is what the majority leader is admitting for his party by saying we are not going to get done, we are going to have to wait until after the election.

Now, what you don't read between these lines is: If we win the election, we will have to come back and do something, because there will be a Presidential election coming in 2 years. Or, if we don't win the election and the Democrats are in charge, it is their problem.

The majority leader is admitting on behalf of all his conferees they have no plan to run this country in a systematic way.

The bill that is going to come up possibly next week, the tax reconciliation bill from October 1, 2005, has in it major tax breaks. Twice this week, once by me and once by Mr. Larson of Connecticut, we tried to take back $5 billion of those tax breaks away from the oil companies. The Republicans said, oh, no, no, we can't take any money away from oil companies. The country will come apart, I guess.

The profits of oil companies in the last 2 years and certainly in the last 6 months have been astronomical. They have really been obscene. Gasoline in my district, you can't find it right now for under $3.25, and it is easy to find it for $3.40, and yet the people on the other side say we have got to keep letting the gasoline companies, big oil, make as much money as possible at the expense of the ordinary person. The Republicans ought to get out their rubber stamp and do what the President wants, because that is the only hope they have got.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder when I am out here on the floor whether anybody ever listens to anybody.

The distinguished gentleman from Texas who opposes this motion acts like some kind of wild-eyed liberal. Left-wing bunch of environmentalists come up with this idea all by themselves. This came out of the Senate, I would tell my distinguished colleague. This came out of the Republican Senate. This is an idea that sprang from conservative Republican minds who understand that there is some reason to think that the oil companies have enough.

Now, as Yogi Berra used to say, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' We are running the same script tonight as we ran about a week ago.

A week ago, the Republicans voted down my motion to stop the oil companies from legally cooking their books to avoid paying their fair share of Federal taxes. My distinguished colleague from Connecticut comes tonight with his motion.

The price tag for the oil industry is $5 billion, not by raising taxes, just by closing loopholes. But they would rather keep the money, inflate their profits and earn more money for buying bonds to finance our Federal deficit and charge the American people more at the pumps.

Now, for Big Oil, too much is not enough. That is all fine and good with this Republican leadership in the House, but it is not right with many of my Republican colleagues who know it. In fact, last week a handful of them were brave enough to vote with the Democrats and voted in favor of this motion. Now here we are, and we are going to give you a second chance.

Do we pave a road with gold for Big Oil? Do we allow them to continue to cook their books, to keep $5 billion that rightfully belongs to the American people? Even the Senate Republicans cannot buy that. My goodness, guys, come on. Even the Senate Republicans.

But, of course, the House Republicans are different. Your gas tank is empty. Your wallet may be empty. Your credit card debt may be rising with gas prices, but the party of 1 percent, which is really what the Republican Party is, does not care. Because Big Oil is part of the 1 percent of America that the House Republicans reward. They are going to pay for it by taking it out of the hides of 99 percent of the rest of America, the middle class.

I join gladly with my esteemed colleague from Connecticut to ask the House Republicans to act on the Senate Republican proposal which we support. They offered to buy you a tank of gas. That is what the leader in the other body said: we are going to give you a $100 rebate. Even industry turned that down. What good is it giving people two tanks of gas? That is simply not enough.

The American people deserve more than a Republican handout. They deserve a prescription to end America's addiction to oil. And in the weeks since the Republicans first voted down this motion, the price of gasoline has risen again.

You cannot seem to get the message. There is no surprise here. Net income of oil companies has nearly tripled since 2002, and the margins for oil refining have risen 700 percent. The answer to date from this administration and House Republicans is to give them all they want, and they want it all.

The American people are becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil, and the House Republicans are going along for the ride. But with the enthusiastic report of the President, House Republicans are showing what their energy strategy really looks like. It is not about extracting oil. It is about extracting every dime from the American people for the oil companies. They are drilling in your wallet, and a gusher of consumer debt is paving a road of gold for Big Oil. That is the solution for our energy price for the party of 1 percent: supersize the price of a gallon of gasoline and let Big Oil get fat on the profits.

Their idea of energy independence is to dig deeper into your wallet. Democrats believe it is time to govern for the 99 percent of Americans that the Republicans have simply forgotten. It is time to stop Big Oil from cooking its books and frying the American people in the process. It is time we supersize renewable resources like wind and solar. It is time energy independence became a national policy, not a national advertising campaign by Big Oil paid for by the American people.

We can start now. We can pass this motion to instruct. We need to restore rational fiscal policy. The $5 billion would give us some money to do some of that and not endorse reckless financial tax holidays for Big Oil.

When Republicans talk about shared sacrifice, they have to prove they mean more than offering up the American people on the altar of corporate greed.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Larson motion. Just because the Democrats have the right policy on this issue does not mean the Republicans have to vote against it. You can vote with us once in a while. You will not die, nothing terrible will happen to you, and the American people will win. I urge adoption of this motion.

Madam Speaker, back in 1948, President Truman dubbed the Republican-led House the ``Do-Nothing Congress.'' He came up with the name because the House barely ever met.

Would you believe that as bad as the 1948 Congress was, the Republican-led Congress of 2006 is worse? So far this year we have only been in session 22 days, and we are only scheduled to hold votes on a total of 97, which is 11 days less than the ``Do-Nothing Congress'' of 1948.

There is so much to do, gas prices and all the rest, but here in Washington the House Republicans seem content just to ignore our Nation's problems. Maybe they are satisfied with the work they have already done on behalf of their special interests for the election.

There is another thing this group has in common with the 1948 Republican ``Do Nothing Congress.'' Consider this comment from President Truman in 1948: ``Something happens to Republican leaders when they get control of the government. They have a hard time hearing what the ordinary people of the country are saying, but they have no trouble at all hearing what Wall Street wants.''

It is time for the 2006 Congress to do something about the problems of the people in this country.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Foreign Trade Council, Coalition for Employment Through Exports and USA*Engage yesterday distributed to members a very cogent description of some of the reasons to oppose H.R. 282. I recommend that members review it.

Hon. Jim McDermott,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Re H.R. 282, Iran Sanctions Act.

Dear Congressman McDermott: Our organizations write in

opposition to the Iran Sanctions Act, H.R. 282, which has

been placed on the House suspension calendar for this week.

While we recognize the serious concerns raised by the current

regime in Iran, we are concerned that the changes which have

been proposed to the U.S. sanctions program would hinder, not

help, our efforts to address the situation. Specifically,

these changes would remove the vital flexibility of U.S.

sanctions policy, drive a wedge between U.S. and our allies

in the on-going joint efforts to influence the Iranian

regime, increase the involvement of courts in U.S. foreign

policy, and discourage foreign investment in the United

States. We urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 282 when it

comes up under suspension of the rules this week to allow for

fuller and more informed consideration over the negative

consequences of these changes to U.S. law.

In particular, we note the following concerns with the

current bill as it was ordered reported by the House

International Relations Committee on March 15:

The bill would remove the extremely useful periodic review

of the Iran sanctions regime by removing the sunset provision

included in the earlier Iran Libya Sanctions Act. Sunset

provisions are vital to creating an effective sanctions

regime as they permit Congress to review sanctions to ensure

that they are effective and useful over time. Congress

engaged in a useful debate over reforms in Iran when

sanctions up for renewal in 2001 and it is important that

Members allow for such a debate in the future.

H.R. 282 would make the United States more vulnerable to

international commercial complaints and damage U.S. global

financial leadership by greatly expanding the entities

subject to sanctions to include insurers, creditors and

foreign subsidiaries. The United States would undoubtedly

face complaints and lawsuits from our trading partners

questioning their legality. It would also stoke ``economic

nationalism,'' which may seriously disrupt vital U.S.

business overseas.

The capital market sanctions contained in H.R. 282 would

discourage foreign investment in the United States and could

potentially damage U.S. business interests abroad. By

requiring publication of the names of entities that have

investments in violation of the sanctions, ordering a report

by an office of the Security and Exchange Commission, and

encouraging divestment of stocks, H.R. 282 sends a negative

signal to foreign companies interested in investing in the

United States. This bill encourages global companies to avoid

investments in the United States by leaving them exposed to

potential capital market sanctions. Foreign governments may

also seek to retaliate against U.S. firms abroad based on

their own political motivations.

H.R. 282 would hinder the flexibility of the President to

conduct foreign policy. The bill would require the President

to direct the Treasury Department to initiate investigations

into the potential for sanctioning firms investing in Iran

and would require the President to determine to impose

sanctions

on such entities within 360 days. This provision would also

apply retroactively, requiring sanctions determinations on

pending investigations of prior investments within ninety

days of enactment. If the President chose to waive the

sanctions, which is possible under an inadequately narrow

provision in this bill, he would be required to renew that

waiver every six months. This policy of requiring

investigations and sanctions determinations on each and every

past and future investment in Iran by a person described in

the Act would severely restrict the Administration's

flexibility to conduct foreign policy in ways that can adapt

to complex, changing circumstances.

Finally, we encourage Congress and the House International

Relations Committee to rethink the sanctions regime in light

of their serious unintended impact on the people of Iran

and our own ability to forge vital international

alliances. When we hear of reports like those raised in

the March 15 hearing of the Committee on International

Relations--about the difficulties that humanitarian

organizations have had operating to relieve suffering by

earthquake victims--it seems appropriate to take a closer

look at whether there might be a better way for the United

States to address the serious concerns raised by the

policies of the Iranian government.

At the very least, we hope that there will be an

opportunity to hold a fuller debate over the proposed radical

changes to the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, and therefore

respectfully request that you vote against H.R. 282.

Respectfully submitted,

USA*Engage.

Coalition for Employment Through Exports.

National Foreign Trade Council.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my Democratic colleagues to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees who are negotiating with Senators in a conference committee to work out differences on H.R. 4297, Tax Cut Reconciliation.

We have an opportunity to stand up for America's middle class, and I urge every Member to support the two key provisions in our Democratic motion: one, closing tax loopholes for oil companies; and, two, dropping the provision to extend tax holidays for the super rich beyond 2008.

The timing of this conference committee could not be more urgent. And the time has come for this House to prove to the American people that they, and not the oil companies, come first.

All across this country, Americans are looking for a pump that has gasoline in it for under $3 a gallon, and nothing has happened here. The time has come for the Republicans to stop being the party of the 1 percent and to govern on behalf of all the American people.

Today's gas prices are so high, you almost need a space shuttle to see the top. We are getting near $4 in some parts of this country, and by all indications, the oil companies fully intend to keep raising prices at the pump. Record-shattering quarterly profits, one after another, but underinvestigating in new refinery capacity quarter after quarter. This crisis is not about supply and demand. It is about a handful of oil companies refusing to supply the demand in order to drive up the prices.

This Nation needs more than energy independence from the Middle East. It needs energy independence from oil companies who are willing to crush the American middle class. Today, oil prices are forcing American families to choose between basic necessities or more debt to pay the oilman. And how we have paid, and paid, and paid.

Net income of oil companies has nearly tripled in the last 4 years. Earnings per share are up 50 percent, but the dividends are only up 10 percent. And oil companies on average have doubled their purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. They are financing the Federal budget deficit even as it soars higher because of energy prices. That is the definition in my book of a double dip.

Now, the Senate wants oil companies to pay their fair share in corporate taxes, nothing more, nothing less. Republicans, however, in the House want the oil companies to continue to cook their books, using perfectly legal but completely immoral loopholes their lobbyists have fed the Republicans in the House. The Senate is right, and the House should stop defending oil companies and start protecting the American people. It is also a time to represent all the American people, not just the top 1 percent.

We have a war we cannot pay for. We have a deficit we cannot control. We have a growing number of Americans going into poverty, cuts in student loans and cuts for needy families. And the Republicans think the answer is to extend tax holidays for the wealthy in capital gains and dividend cuts.

Over half of this benefit goes to people earning over $1 million a year, most of whom drive into the gas station and they do not even look at the pump to see what it costs. They have extended their wealth while America has expanded its debt. This is not sound fiscal policy for the American people. It is reckless profiteering Republicans are providing the wealthy in this country.

The tax holiday continues for another 2 years, but the Republicans want to reward the rich by adding another 2 years; 2008 is not enough, they want to go out to 2010.

Now, the American middle class is struggling to make ends meet, and House Republicans are scrambling to reward their friends just months ahead of the election. In today's Washington Post, the majority leader of the House, Republican, says we will stop any attempt to deal with the oil companies and control their profits.

It is time to put the American people first, ahead of oil companies, ahead of special interests, ahead of the super rich. This motion to instruct is a call to restore the American middle class to its rightful place in the center of domestic policy. And I urge every Member to make America the only special interest we care about.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record the Federal Reserve study article that is in the Wall Street Journal which says ``Did the Dividend Tax Cut Work?'' No. Absolutely not. It ``didn't boost market's aggregate value,'' and it has been a dud.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 6, 2005]

Did the Dividend-Tax Cut Work?

(By Karen Richardson)

When President Bush slashed the tax on dividends in 2003,

supporters hailed the move as a way to stimulate the economy

and boost the stock market.

At least for the stock-market part of that plan, the jury

is still out. A group of Federal Reserve Board economists

concludes that the tax cut, which slashed the dividend-income

tax on stocks to 15% from about 30%-38%, was a dud when it

came to boosting the stock market when it was announced and

passed in 2003--a time period, they say, that the stock

market should have reacted most strongly.

Nor did the tax cut lead to a significant increase in the

amount of money companies paid out to investors as a

proportion of their earnings, the study adds.

``We fail to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax

cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market,'' the

economists--Gene Amromin, Paul Harrison, Nellie Liang and

Steve Sharpe--wrote in a paper they presented in October.

Administration supporters point to the 2003 tax cuts on

dividend income and long-term capital gains (also reduced to

about 15% from about 20%) as successful center pieces of

President Bush's economic policy. White House officials

already are lobbying for an extension of the tax cut, which

expires in 2008. The White House budget office, in a memo to

the Senate in November, said the extensions are ``necessary

to provide certainty for investors and business and are

essential to sustaining long-term economic growth.''

The Fed economists' paper compares U.S. stock-market

returns with those of European stocks over various ``key

periods'' in 2003. The economists tracked stock performance

during a few days in early January, after the Bush

administration officially announced the tax-cut proposal, and

two weeks in the latter half of May, when the tax bill was

being discussed in the Senate and was eventually signed into

law by the president May 28.

While those ``event windows'' are small, they are

sufficient to capture the stock market's reaction to news of

the tax cuts, the economists say. ``The markets should have

absorbed the tax-cut news within a month, if not a week or a

few days, afterward, since markets are somewhat efficient in

responding to news,'' says co-author Mr. Sharpe.

Theoretically, U.S. stocks should have performed better

than European stocks because U.S. investors, who hold far

more U.S. stocks than European stocks, would benefit from the

tax cut and presumably drive up stock prices with their new

expected windfall. Instead, the economists found that the S&P

Euro 350, which covers about 70% of Europe's market

capitalization, performed similarly to or better than U.S.

stocks tracked in the S&P 500.

The authors assumed that the anxiety of the impending war

in Iraq was the main influence on all stock markets around

the world over those periods. So by comparing European stocks

with U.S. stocks, they aimed to control for major world

events. Thus, ``any effect of the dividend tax should have

resulted in a differential in performance,'' according to

Mr. Sharpe.

Still, the economists didn't address other factors that

might have contributed to a rise in European stocks or a drop

in the U.S. market during the review periods.

For example, in the U.S., a stock-market rally in early

January that some observers at the time said might have been

driven by the tax-cut news ended after a few days when

aluminum giant and Dow Jones Industrial Average component

Alcoa Inc. reported bearish fourth-quarter results. Also, a

terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia in mid-May rattled the

U.S., along with concerns about the weak dollar. Meanwhile,

some Europe firms were reporting strong earnings.

While more companies paid out dividends in 2003, they

didn't increase their average total payouts to shareholders

as much as they have in the past. The authors found that 66%

of S&P 1500 firms increased their total payouts to

shareholders that year--through some combination of dividend

payouts and share-repurchase programs--compared with the

average of 89% that did so in the period of 1993 to 2002.

``The dividend tax cut did prompt a substitution from

repurchases to dividends, but the effect on total payouts was

much more muted,'' the authors conclude.

Other market observers see it differently. The dividend

tax-cut has ``definitely'' helped to stimulate the stock

market, and has contributed to the slow but steady increase

of dividend payouts this year, says Howard Silverblatt,

equity market analyst at Standard & Poor's.

According to Mr. Silverblatt's research, the tax cuts on

both dividends and long-term capital gains will result in

individual investors saving a total of $114 billion from 2003

to 2008. ``We believe a lot of that will filter back into the

stock market,'' he says, pointing out that investors often

reinvest their windfalls in other stocks.

Also, a Thomson Financial model shows that dividend tax

cuts should theoretically result in higher stock-market

returns each year, while, not surprisingly, higher tax rates

should lower returns. However, Michael Thompson, director of

research at Thomson Financial, cautions that attributing

stock-market gains to one isolated factor risks being

``intellectually dishonest.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman from California was talking, Exxon's profits went up $160,000. They are making profit this quarter at $80,000 a minute, and the Republicans don't want to do anything.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point an article from the Wall Street Journal dated January 31 that talks about Exxon's excess profits, and also the one from The New York Times from April 13 about the Exxon chairman's retirement package of $398 million.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 31, 2006]

Exxon Posts Another Record Profit

(By Jeffrey Ball)

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil

company by market value, racked up another record profit,

saying its fourth-quarter earnings surpassed $10 billion, a

result likely to intensify political heat on the energy

industry.

Amid high oil, gasoline and natural-gas prices, Exxon said

its net income surged to $10.71 billion, up 27% from $8.42

billion a year earlier and 8% above Exxon's third-quarter

result of $9.92 billion, which itself was a company record.

Exxon said fourth-quarter revenue was $99.66 billion, up 20%

from $83.37 billion a year earlier.

The Exxon result amounted to a profit of about $80,842 per

minute during the quarter. It was one of the biggest

quarterly profits of any company in history. Though a handful

of other companies have posted higher quarterly profits,

those were largely accounting adjustments, while Exxon's

result came mainly from operations.

Net income per share was $1.71, compared with $1.30 a share

a year earlier. Exxon's results included a special gain of

$390 million related to a lawsuit. The result surpassed the

predictions of a Wall Street that expects boom times in the

oil patch. At 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite

trading, Exxon's shares rose $1.82, or 3%, to $63.11.

The biggest driver of Exxon's surging profit was high

energy prices amid the world's increasing thirst for oil and

natural gas. The company's ``upstream'' earnings--income from

producing and selling crude oil and natural gas--rose 44%

from a year earlier. Exxon's ``downstream'' earnings--what

the company makes from refining crude oil into finished

products like gasoline and heating oil and selling them--rose

2% from a year earlier. Higher prices for those products were

partly offset by lower production volumes following the

hurricanes that temporarily shut down a big chunk of the U.S.

refining infrastructure.

Exxon, of Irving, Texas, was the latest major U.S. energy

company to report roaring fourth-quarter results because of

high energy prices. Exxon's profit soared even though the

company produced less fossil fuel. Total oil-equivalent

production in the fourth quarter fell 1% from a year earlier;

the company said. Oil production rose 2.5% as increased

output from West Africa, Azerbaijan and the North Sea offset

declines from mature fields, continuing below-normal

production in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the

hurricanes and other factors. Natural-gas production fell

5.8%.

Exxon's record take is likely to ratchet up calls in

Washington for a crackdown on energy-industry profits.

President Bush today is to deliver his State of the Union

address to a nation pinched by high energy costs. Sunday, the

average U.S. price of regular unleaded gasoline averaged

$2.34 a gallon. While that price was down from the peak after

last year's hurricanes, it was up about 24% from a year

earlier and up 6.6% from a month ago, according to AAA, the

motoring club.

The Senate has passed two provisions that would effectively

raise the tax bills of major oil companies. One would reduce

their ability to trim tax bills through an inventory-

accounting method known as ``last-in, first-out,'' which ties

the cost of goods sold to the cost of the most-recent

purchases. The other would bar them from claiming credits

against U.S. tax bills for the taxes they pay in some oil-

rich countries. Oil-company officials say they consider the

two a threat. Some analysts doubt the measures will pass the

House.

Exxon has been trying to pre-empt a backlash. Exxon said it

is boosting spending on finding and producing stores of oil

and natural gas. Capital and exploration spending in the

quarter was $5.3 billion, up 26% from a year earlier, a

sizable rise by industry standards.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my good friend from Louisiana defend the Republican Party. It is the party of 1 percent that he is over there defending. As I listen to him, I was reminded of a remark that President Reagan was often fond of saying. He would say, well, there you go again. If he were here today, he would say exactly that, and he would be absolutely right.

The Republicans are running a do-nothing Congress. It is not even a do-nothing, it is they cannot do anything. They come out here and admit that with gas prices where they are, they can't do a thing about it. Can't do a thing about it. It is hopeless.

So the American people are stuck with the Republicans, and the people should remember that as the election comes, because the Republicans stood out here today and said they cannot do anything.

We went after the oil companies to get some of that money to do things with that this society needs, but the Republicans are only interested in the 1 percent. The other 99 percent are on their own luck. There has been a lot of energy here tonight telling us how big oil companies should continue to fleece the people at the pumps. But that is what big oil companies have a right to do, and we all should pay more. They want to be sure that we continue to have the American millionaires have 2 more years of a comfortable tax holiday.

Now, people can talk about numbers out here, but I want to talk about a couple of people, one of whom is the Exxon chairman who just retired. They gave him $398 million. This is a guy making $1.6 million every year, okay? I mean, that is just for starters.

Now, as he retired, they said we know you are going to play golf when you are retired; we will pick up your golf fees. They will pay his golf fees forever at $210,000 a year. I mean, they are going to let him use the corporate airplane for the rest of his life, and they are going to keep him on for a year at $1 million as a consultant.

Then there is Joe Public. He is at the pump tonight, or he is watching us talk about this, having just come from

the pump, or Sally Public, either one of them has been to the pump today, and they have watched that thing go around at $3 a gallon and realized the average income in this country is $40,000. Forty thousand dollars.

Now, the Exxon president, or the executive that I just talked about, is going to get a $32,000 tax break from this bill that my friend says is going to somehow cripple the economy.

What is fair about that? The average person has to buy gasoline to get to work, take their kids to school, heat the house. If you live where I do, you do not need so much heat as you do in other parts of the country, and down where the gentleman from Louisiana lives, you do not need much heat. But other places they have to use a lot of heat in the wintertime. They are still paying 4 bucks a gallon for it, or are going to be paying 4 bucks a gallon.

The average person, you talk about these capital gains; oh, well, everybody gets capital gains, yes. The Exxon chief will take $32,000 in tax breaks away on average, and the average $40,000 person in this country is going to get 7 bucks. That is the average. That is 2 gallons of gas.

Now, is that fair? Is that what you think America is all about? Is that what the Republicans say? Well, you know, the gas prices are going up. I guess it is supply and demand. I don't know. I don't know how come the oil companies are making all this extra money. We shouldn't be able to cut down how much money they make. They should just be able to make more money. They are taking it out of the hides of the working people in this country.

Now, we don't want people on welfare, no, sir. We don't want people on welfare. You can't buy a house in many places or find a place to live in many cities because the prices are so high.

When I was in New Orleans just about 4 or 5 weeks ago, I asked the president of Tulane Medical School, if I could do one thing for you, what would it be? He said, do you know what it would be? Bring some housing downtown, because all my nurses have to live 70, 80 miles away and drive into work every day, and all the workers in the hospitality industry have to live out of town. They are all paying 4 bucks a gallon for gasoline, driving all the way from Baton Rouge all the way down.

That is not just in Louisiana. It is all over this country. You are sitting here telling us that we cannot do anything, that Big Oil has to be protected. Well, they will just go down in a pile.

Then the real interesting part is to come out here and blame the environmentalists. Here we have got global warming, absolutely clear, and everybody is tackling the environmentalists saying, oh, they are the ones who are creating the problem. We have got to get off oil.

The President, I got to say, occasionally the President is right. I don't say that very often on the floor, but I will say the President was right when he said we are addicted to oil. Boy, this Congress is addicted to oil. When we cannot close three loopholes and take back $5 billion that we could use for home heating oil or student loans or Medicare or Medicaid or all the things that this society needs, we can't take that and use it for the public good, there is something very wrong in this society.

And if the people are going to have a choice in November, they are going to say, well, Republicans stood by and watched the deficit go up out of sight, and they watched the oil prices go up out of sight, and they said, well, we don't know what to do. Nothing we can do about that. We have to keep passing tax breaks to the 1 percent in this society who are doing very well.

The President gets out there and tries to tell everybody that things are going well in this country economically, but the people don't believe it. You know why? Because it isn't going well for most people. They are stuck with $3- and $4-a-gallon gas. They have no way to avoid that. It is hard to ride your bike 70 miles into town to get to work. Now, you can do it, but it really takes a lot of effort. Most people aren't able to change from a car with a gasoline engine to a bicycle, so they are stuck. They can't walk to work. They are stuck in this society. In our city they are talking about raising the rates on the mass transit because of the cost of gasoline. So even those riding the bus are going to get socked by this.

When we come out here and offer a modest motion to something that the Republican Senate went along with, you know how bad it is. And that is the irony of ironies, to have me up here arguing for three amendments that have been approved by the Republican Senate. If I will go along with that, I will take anything to make it better for the American people. But not the Republicans in the House. Oh, no, no, no, must not touch the oil companies. Huh-uh. We can't take a single dime away from them or the whole thing will come unraveled.

And they want to be sure that America's millionaires are comfortable for at least two more years of tax holidays.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay for their fiscal recklessness.

They can't do anything about gasoline prices, and won't fight to make oil companies pay their fair share in taxes--fair share--like the rest of us do.

They can't do anything about the rise in poverty in America, where one in five children--1 in 5--lives in poverty today.

They can't do anything about helping Middle Class kids have access to student loans to pay for college.

They can't do anything about a prescription drug benefit that benefits the drug companies and confounds senior citizens.

They can't do anything about controlling special interests, because they are the Party of special interests. Republicans are the Party of One Percent.

If you're a fat cat, Republicans are inviting you to dinner, and they are serving the American Middle Class.

We have an opportunity to do something that benefits the American people, all of them. The oil companies ought to pay their taxes like everyone else. And millionaires will just have to manage with only two more years on tax holiday.

We have an opportunity to take a stand for the 99 percent of the American people who have been left out of a Republican nation.

The American people should be first in line, not first to pay.

It's time we do something about it.

Pass this Motion to Instruct. Make this the day we tell the oil companies to supply the demand, and stop demanding more tax subsidies to enrich only themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this and do something for the American middle class.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed--

(1) to agree to the following provisions of the Senate

amendment: section 461 (relating to revaluation of LIFO

inventories of large integrated oil companies), section 462

(relating to elimination of amortization of geological and

geophysical expenditures for major integrated oil companies),

and section 470 (relating to modifications of foreign tax

credit rules applicable to large integrated oil companies

which are dual capacity taxpayers), and

(2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that

extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that

would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is an election year, and I know President Bush's ratings are at an all-time low, and I know gas prices are very high and the people are restless. Nevertheless, I call upon my colleagues and the President to resist the temptation to start yet another war.

There is an old saying: ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Well, friends, if we fall for the case being made to go to war against Iran, it will be ``shame on us.'' And I define bombing from 40,000 feet as war.

Just as we did in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, a country which had no connection to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, this administration intentionally confused us with regard to Iraq. It is doing the same with Iran. The administration says they want compliance with nuclear treaties but makes it clear that they really will settle for nothing less than regime change.

When I said before the Iraq war that I believed the President would be willing to mislead us into the war if he believed misleading us was necessary to fulfill his plans, I was excoriated, but I was right. I do not characterize the President's motives. I assume he took us into war in Iraq because he sincerely believed it was the right thing to do. We know now that he was wrong about that. The world is less safe. The Iraqis are in turmoil. More Americans have died in the President's plan in Iraq than died in New York City and at the Pentagon.

What the President did with our Iraq policy is being replicated with our Iran policy. There was much to criticize about Saddam Hussein, and there is much to criticize about the ayatollahs and their front men in Iran. We have every right to demand that Iran adhere to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to pursue sanctions and other penalties. What we do not have the right to do is to make it impossible for Iran to satisfy our demands without regime change.

When we started demanding regime change in Iraq instead of demanding compliance with U.N. inspectors, we put ourselves on the path to war in Iraq. We are on the same plan and the same path in Iran. We will not talk with the Iranian government, and we will not stop talking about overthrowing it. It is impossible for the Iranian government to satisfy this administration and remain a government, although this administration will immediately deny that.

Every time it appears something is going to work out with the Soviet Union, or whatever, we pull the rug out from the negotiators. Because we don't want negotiation. We don't want to solve the problem. We want regime change. Somehow this administration has got it in its head that it has the right to tell other governments to step aside for people we like better. That is wrong.

We tried it with Mosaddegh and put in the Shah and we are back at it again. What we should do instead is to call their bluff and let them save face at the same time. If they say they want nuclear energy, we should say, okay, if it is nuclear energy you want, you won't mind having wall-to-wall U.N. inspectors watching every move you make to keep people from getting the wrong idea.

We make sure that they can't build bombs and let them have what they are entitled to under the NPT: civilian energy. We must quit making the leaders more popular. And we are doing it by making them the guys who stand up to the U.S. We must quit acting like we are going to invade any country that has the wrong regime.

If we attack Iran, as I fear we are on a course to do, we will unleash a hell unlike anything this region has seen. Iran is not Iraq. It has not been under sanctions for 10 years. It has not been bombed flat by the Gulf War. It is a strong nation with weapons. We will make ourselves once again less safe if we attack them.

Mr. Speaker, this administration has now been told on this floor, in public, on the record. The President will come here in about 6 or 8 or 9 months and give us a State of the Union. If he has taken us into a war in Iran, he will deserve what happens.

This country does not need another war. We have already proven the failure of that in Iraq; and because they won't change their mind, they keep doing the same thing over and over again. And now there is an election coming up. The 2006 election is coming and they want to distract us. That is why they are leading us towards Iran.

Mr. Chairman, when I read through this budget, they are back again, folks. They are back again.

Just a few months ago the Republicans called a final vote on the budget bill that slashed funding for child support enforcement, foster care, student loans and health care coverage for low income families. Today, the nightmare continues. They are back again doing the same thing within 3 months.

Republicans propose another round of pain for Americans already suffering. The committee on which I serve is required by the Congress to cut $4 billion from the budget. Now, it will come out of my subcommittee, the one I am the ranking member on, because that is where the children are and that is where the weak and the old and the sick are. They are not going to take it away from the taxpayers. They are going to take it away for the poor and the weak.

When the Republicans send the high-income earners to the trough for more tax cuts, they will starve the Federal programs to help the poor.

I know it is Lent; so I am sure this is a faith-based initiative we have here, and the Republicans certainly understand the idea of sacrifice. This budget sacrifices one-third of the Social Services Block Grant, which funds assistance for abused kids, child care for working families, and vital services for the disabled and the seniors in this country. I asked the Rules Committee to allow an amendment to restore these cuts, but the Republicans said no. Mr. Chairman, why will you not allow this House to actually consider the effects of slashing programs to help the sick and the poor?

Now, I know some key Republicans have left, but the fix is still in in this joint. The Republican Congress will rubber-stamp the Bush agenda and provide for those who need it least. It is Lent, and the Republican majority is ready to sacrifice common sense, common decency, and common dreams.

The Republicans' budget sacrifices morality and a balanced budget for tax holidays for the rich, for the 1 percent. The party of the 1 percent is in charge in this House. Only the 1 percent at the top matters.

They're back, Mr. Chairman, and the Republican budget is no apparition. It is a real assault.

There is an irony that maybe some of you out on this floor may not think about, but some Members are running for higher office in State- level jobs. Some of those people are cutting the very programs that they, if they win their election in November, will have to go out and deal with the problems. If you are running for a State governorship or any kind of State office, think very carefully about how you stab yourself, because you are going to meet this when you get there after the election.