Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today's martial law bill is necessary because we need to pass this Republican tax bill which is a cookie jar of tax cuts for corporate interests.

The bill contains goodies for the restaurant association, the ethanol producers, the big timber companies. It provides sweets for those who have enough money to own their own corporate jets. It even dishes out rewards to the railroads like Treasury Secretary Snow's former company,

Mr. Speaker, well, the Republican rhetoric about the economy does not match the reality on this issue either. New figures show U.S. companies announced layoffs of more than 100,000 people last month.

If that is not bad enough, the pace of new job postings plunged in September to a mere 16,000. This is the President's economic equivalent of Mission Accomplished. Over the third quarter, job layoffs topped a quarter of a million workers. That is 20 percent worse than the last quarter, and they call it progress. The September figure for layoffs was the largest number in 8 months, and they call it progress.

They cannot create a job, so they create a sound bite. They do the same thing in Iraq every day. Things are getting better, they explain, while the rest of America looks at the nightly news and wonders what in the world these people are talking about. Every night, they deny what is before their eyes.

They have not done the job. The record is clear, and so is the outcome. In 27 days, the American people will give the President and the Vice President bus fare out of town.

{time} 1015

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the President of the United States transcends politics. Even when the person occupying the office violates the public trust, as President Nixon did, the American people lost faith in the politician but not the office. It was an extreme display of patriotism and optimism. America is on the verge of doing that again.

When an administration that claims, as this one did, that it had hard incontrovertible evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the American people believed it because it came from the Office of the President. Now the President's security adviser admits there were serious doubts that Saddam had the aluminum tubes needed for weapons of mass destruction, the very basis for going to war; but the administration ignored the evidence and manufactured the sound bites that took America to war.

In so doing, the administration violated the trust the American people place in the Office of the President. The American people will take the first step in restoring integrity to the Office of the President when they elect John Kerry as the next President on November 2. It cannot come too soon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Often this close to an election, we waste a lot of time on nonsense aimed to affect the election. But today's bill is really important because it aims to improve the chances of foster children to find permanent homes more quickly. This bill provides incentives to States that quickly place out-of-state children into permanent homes. But it also penalizes States that place children too slowly.

I am concerned that there may be situations where the delays in placement are caused by Federal agencies, not by State mismanagement; and I would like to ask the gentleman from California to engage me in a brief colloquy.

Since the bill calls for a government study to look at the reasons for delays in conducting background checks on prospective adoptive and foster parents, is it the gentleman from California's intention to work with me and my colleagues to address any barriers that the study finds especially at the Federal level?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. We look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I put this bill in in January of 2003 because we knew that not every American was at equal risk, that the wealthy would not go, and the war would be like all the others. But no one wanted to talk about it then. They buried it over in the Defense Department. We have not heard about it until this very day, on the day the Vice President is going to get up and debate tonight. We will see.

Now, why are we here today? We are here because you are afraid. You are afraid that the young people of this country are watching television. You are afraid that they do not believe the President, they do not believe Mr. Rumsfeld, they do not believe Condoleezza Rice, they do not believe anybody who tells them there is not going to be a draft, because they see what you are doing to the Guard and what you are doing to the Reserves and what you are doing to the individual Ready Reserves that you are pulling back in. They know you are not telling the truth.

Now, these kids may have funny hair and they may look odd and have rings in their nose and whatever, but they know the truth, and they are on the Internet blogs and the telephone. Every time the President denies it, the phone calls pour into our offices: When is it going to happen?

Now, we know that if Mr. Bush gets reelected and he comes up here and asks you for a draft, we have got to have more troops and we are going to do it this way or that way, you will roll over for him like butter in the hot sun. There will not be anything left of you but a puddle of butter, because you know that you will not be able to stand up to him. And the fact is that the kids have got it right, and now their parents are listening and are saying, Oh, my God, there might actually be a draft.

It would not be hard to do. Let me tell my colleagues how it works. Just announce that there are not going to be any loans for college. You can get $80,000 if you enlist, but if you are not going to enlist, you are not going to get to go to college on government money. Rich mommies and daddies will take care of their boys, but poor ones will have to go to the military.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican ploy is not going to work. Finally, it is out in the open. H.R. 163, which the administration denied for 18 months, that is the national service bill, is not going to go away because the Republicans will it. They opened Pandora's box with this needless door, and they cannot close it, no matter how hard they try.

Finally, the American people are going to get the truth. H.R. 163 is out in the open. The administration denied the existence of the possibility of a draft since the day we proposed it. They refused to face the issue of who would fight and die in the President's war. They ordered the Republican majority to bury 163 alive; refer it to the Department of Defense where it would be placed in solitary confinement forever; lose it in the system, just like they lose human beings in the system in Iraq. But they did not count on the kids, our sons and daughters or nieces and nephews our godchildren and grandchildren. The Republicans did not count on the kids. It started on the Internet blogs. Go look for yourself. We raise smart kids, America. They were the first to see through the administration's rhetoric.

The administration claims we have enough soldiers in Iraq, but they stop-loss soldiers who have survived a year on duty in Iraq, and this administration orders them to stay and fight some more. They claim we have enough soldiers in Iraq, but we call up the ready reserves and order them out to Iraq. They claim they have enough soldiers in Iraq, but they got rid of the general, they retired him, who said it would take 300,000 troops in Iraq.

They get the names and addresses of our high school kids through the PATRIOT Act and send the recruiters on a mission. Yes, America, the PATRIOT Act helps them locate your children. One parent in Seattle called it ``outrageous'' and ``disgraceful.'' How right he was. The PATRIOT Act. You know, the bill the administration claims it needs to catch the terrorists; but it nets the government the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of your sons and daughters, every single one of them. They not only know where you live, they are coming to have a talk with your kid.

They say they do not need a draft. They sure do not act that way. And

that is before the election, the only thing they fear. Even their own guy, the former Iraqi administrator, told an audience yesterday the U.S. went into Iraq without enough troops. The looting, the violence, there was no way to stop it. Paul Bremer said this in a direct quote: ``We never had enough troops on the ground.'' Later, aides said his comments were meant to be off the record. Apparently, that is where the administration keeps the truth these days, off the record.

Likewise, Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York yesterday that he knows of ``no strong, hard evidence linking Saddam to al Qaeda.'' When that one got into the news media, the Secretary said he was misunderstood. I just bet he was.

I know one person who was not misunderstood, the Vice President, who spoke on the record in a disclosed location, Seattle, Washington. This is worth repeating, given the Vice Presidential debates tonight. The Seattle Post Intelligencer and its columnist Joel Connelly found a transcript of a 1992 Seattle appearance by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. He was explaining why the U.S. had left Saddam in Iraq after the first Gulf War, and this is a direct quote: ``And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision we had achieved our objectives and we were not going to get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'' Not going to get bogged down.

Does anyone think the Vice President will talk straight about this later tonight? Not a chance. And they wonder why the kids get it. Every time this administration says there will be no draft, the kids get online and the phones to my office and the office of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) ring off the hook. The kids know the difference between the truth and Republican rhetoric.

H.R. 163 is out of solitary confinement, and it is in the open. What 18-year-old can believe an administration who said there were weapons of mass destruction, knowing their own people doubted it? What 18-year- old can believe they do not intend to get them to Iraq, whether they call it a draft or a precondition for a college loan? What 18-year-old can believe they will tell it straight when they pronounce ``mission accomplished'' over 900 casualties ago?

The kids know, Mr. Speaker. They know just like other generations. The kids are forcing their parents to look at reality and see the truth. The kids may have funny colored hair or a ring in their ear or nose, but they have a good head on their shoulders. Punk rock music may not be the in thing to listen to, but these kids are making voting the in thing to do, and the Republicans are terrified.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join with me to recognize and honor 86-year-old Carl Ostrom, from Seattle. The nationally acclaimed non-profit ``Experience Works,'' which recognizes outstanding contributions by seniors in its annual Prime Time Awards Program, selected Mr. Ostrom as their 2004 Outstanding Older Worker from the State of Washington. It is an honor well deserved.

Mr. Ostrom helps to make the world a better place through his leadership at the University District Food Bank in Seattle, which assists 800 families every week.

Mr. Ostrom serves as the part-time operations manager, overseeing the critical work of delivery and distribution of food. Remarkably, Carl Ostrom has been involved with the University District Food Bank for 17 years.

Carl's unselfish deeds and extraordinary commitment to give back to his community are an inspiration. Carl Ostrom proves, again, that senior citizens can make lifelong contributions to their community and their country. I congratulate Carl Ostrom for being selected the 2004 Outstanding Older Worker in the State of Washington, and I look forward to his continued role in making the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather unusual that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and I are all up here today talking about the same issue because I really think it is time to get some real value out of the administration's color-coded warning system. It is time to declare a code red on the Nation's debt crisis.

The front page story today, which has been alluded to, from USA Today analyzed the financial obligations facing Americans because of government debt. USA Today called it the hidden debt, and it totals a staggering $53 trillion. That translates into $473,456 per household. This money we need right now to meet the future obligations for programs like Medicare, Social Security, and government pensions. It grows by $1 trillion a year as long as this administration's budget binge continues.

The bills come due in earnest beginning in 2008. That is not very far away.

It is a blink of an eye in real terms. So far, the answer out of this administration seems to be a strategy of letting the financial crisis reach epic proportions and then renege on the promise that the country has made to the greatest generation. And that, in my view, is not right.

When Americans need their government most, at retirement, the administration has not put forth a credible plan to honor our commitment to senior citizens. When Americans are most vulnerable, entering retirement after a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice, this administration is budget binging and simply cannot go on.

What will they say to seniors? Well, we would not do the math. Or we did the math and left it to the next administration to be responsible. The road the administration has put this Nation on is a fast track to catastrophe. This is far from a dire warning.

Economists and other experts on both sides of the aisle know the consequences of what USA Today is reporting today. The nonpartison, independent CBO looked at the President's budget. The CBO concluded, ``These long-term budget projections show clearly that the budget is on an unsustainable path.'' That is not rhetoric. That is a dose of reality about where this administration has taken the country.

It gets even worse if a major disruption in oil supplies or another terrorist attack shakes the world's confidence in America. There is a major crisis at America's doorstep, but this administration serves up anecdotes instead of answers.

America's national security cannot be separated from America's economic security. And knowing that this Nation faces a looming debt load surpassing $53 trillion, the administration simply denies the crisis and keeps rewarding the rich with increasing tax cuts. Every day that the administration pretends everything is rosy is another day closer to a crisis when decisions will be forced, not made. That is because America is being run on borrowed money as much as borrowed time.

America is increasingly dependent on foreign governments to finance the U.S. Government spending. Is that the administration's idea of how to keep America secure? The way the administration is going, our insatiable appetite for foreign capital to keep the United States going will match our insatiable appetite for oil. Dealing with one is bad enough. Dealing with both is downright scary.

What happens when foreign countries decide to push the limit and demand more and more of us, not in dollars but in policies? If anyone doubts that carrot-and-stick approach, I would say look back on our own recent history. How many times has the United States tied economic assistance to another nation for concessions on something we want in return? The answer is, too many times to count.

National security depends upon economic security and is not built on top of an international debt or a mountain of international IOUs. We owe the greatest generation something more than a than an IOU. We owe the next generation something more than an anvil of debt hanging around their necks. We owe it to ourselves to face the reality that is facing us this day.

Here is the scale.

America is the greatest economic engine on the face of the earth. Last year, America's entire economic output was $11 trillion, as has been mentioned before. That was the total gross domestic product. As impressive as that is, the GDP pales in comparison to the $53 trillion coming due. Last year's entire economic output of the greatest country on earth is a mere one-fifth of the debt load America faces. Common sense ought to tell us where math like that gets us.

The war on America's debt is going to challenge us in ways we have never seen before. The danger is the economic policies set in motion by the current administration will pit one generation against another; the seniors against the folks in our age group against our kids. Every day the administration denies the problem is another day the war on debt becomes harder to win. We can act while we are still responsible to make choices. Or America can wait until we make or are forced to make draconian cuts.

The Greatest Generation made the greatest sacrifice on behalf of every generation. America owes them a debt of gratitude, not a mountain of debt that imperils everything they fought for. It is time to put the common good ahead of uncommon gain in this country. We have done it before, and we can do it again.

I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) ought to be commended for coming out here and raising this issue. At 10:30 at night, the people of the west coast are still watching, and I am sure people in Tennessee are watching, and people in Texas are watching, and they have got to think about this. This is not being discussed in this campaign. But George Bush has run us off the road. So my hat is off to the gentleman for coming out and talking about this.

Mr. Speaker, who is financing it?

Mr. Speaker, the Vice President had it right on Iraq the first time, and now we know that because of the Seattle Post- Intelligencer newspaper columnist Joe Connelly.

The Vice President was Defense Secretary during the first Gulf War. Mr. Cheney told a Seattle audience in 1992 that it was folly to spill American blood to try to get Saddam or try to govern Iraq. This column ought to be required reading before the Presidential debates.

These are Dick Cheney's exact words in defending the first President Bush's decision to leave Iraq and Saddam Hussein: ``And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we had achieved our objectives and we were not going to get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.''

I am entering Mr. Connelly's column in the Record. It is seattlepi.com. Read it.

Mr. Speaker, they may call it swagger in Texas, but we call it truth in Washington State.

[From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 29, 2004]

In the Northwest: Bush-Cheney Flip-Flops Cost America in Blood

(By Joel Connelly)

As George W. Bush has lately shown, the tactic of

successfully defining your opponent is to political conflict

what occupying the high ground is to waging war.

The Bush-Cheney campaign has gleefully labeled John Kerry a

flip-flopper. But what of Bush-Cheney flip-flops? They're

getting a lot less ink, but America is paying a price in

blood.

Little noticed, and worthy of lengthy consideration, is a

speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in

1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

The words of our future vice president--defending the

decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq--eerily

foretell today's morass. Here is what Cheney said in '92:

``I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have

forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We

would not have been able to get everybody out and bring

everybody home.

``And the final point that I think needs to be made is this

question of casaualties. I don't think you could have done

all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties.

And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low

cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were

killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap

war.

``And the question in my mind is how many additional

American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer

is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both

when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the

president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives

and we were not going to get bogged down in the problems of

trying to take over and govern Iraq.''

How--given what he said then--does Cheney get off

challenging the judgment and strength of those who argue that

we are bogged down and shedding blood today?

Is Sadddam worth the lives of 1,046 (at last count) dead

Americans, and 7,000 injured Americans?

Dick Cheney posed the hard-nosed questions that should be

asked by a president in time of war. George Bush is out on

the campaign trail boasting he's hard-nosed because he didn't

ask how a ``Mission Accomplished!'' could unravel.

Kerry is taking a pounding from the relentless Republican

machine. A GOP TV ad shows Kerry windsurfing, with Strauss'

``Blue Danube'' waltz playing in the background, as the

voice-over claims the nominee has shifted positions

``whichever way the wind blows.''

In case the ``mainstream'' media are interested, or Fox

News wants to balance its reporting to furnish a few moments

of fairness, here are a few Bush flip-flops that might be put

before the voters:

Nation-Building: As a candidate, Dubya traveled the land in

2000 denouncing the Clinton administration for using U.S.

troops in what he called ``nation-building.''

``I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building

and the military in the same sentence,'' he told a rally.

``My view of the military is for our military to be properly

prepared to fight and win wars--therefore, (to) prevent war

from happening in the first place.''

What are we doing in Iraq if not ``nation-building?''

Enmeshed in Iraq, are we properly prepared to fight such

crazies as the nuclear weapon-equipped ``Great Leader'' of

North Korea, Kim Jong II?

Our Real Enemy: Two days after 9/11, President Bush

declared: ``The most important thing is for us to find Osama

bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest

until we find him.''

Six months later, laying political groundwork for the Iraq

war, the President said: ``I don't know where he is. I have

no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important.

It's not our priority.''

The 9/11 Commission: The White House initially opposed

creation of an independent commission to investigate causes

of the 9/11 atrocities. A July 2002 statement read: ``The

administration would oppose an amendment that would create a

new commission to conduct a similar review (to Congress'

investigation).''

The administration reversed course five months later. The

bipartisan commission, including former Sen. Slade Gorton, R-

WA, distinguished itself at hearings and in its findings and

recommendations.

Homeland Security: In the fall of 2001 Sens. John McCain,

R-AZ, and Joe Lieberman, D-CT, proposed creating a Cabinet-

level Department of Homeland Security.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer outlined the

administration's opposition in October 2001, saying Congress

did not need to make the director's job ``a statutory post''

and that ``every agency of the government has security

concerns.''

A year later, the Bush administration was flaying Sen. Max

Cleland, D-GA--a Vietnam triple amputee--for allegedly being

an obstacle to creation of the department. Anti-Cleland ads

showing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein flashed across the

TV screens of Georgia.

Such are this administration's major national security

flip-flops. But other flips bear on our safety.

During the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush pledged to limit

carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. It didn't

happen. The President promised to support--or at least sign--

renewal of Congress' 1994 ban on military-style assault

weapons. The Bush administration didn't lift a finger to

extend the ban, which recently expired.

Out here on America's ``Left Coast,'' candidate George Bush

proclaimed himself a steadfast free trader. Even today,

Republican State Chairman Chris Vance hammers Kerry as a

flip-flopper on trade.

How, then, to explain the President's 2002 decision to slap

tariffs of 8 to 30 percent on steel imports to the United

States? (The tariffs were lifted after 21 months.)

Answer: The steel-producing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio

and West Virginia have 46 fought-over electoral votes in this

year's election.

Mr. Speaker, today shame looms over this body. Today you place legislation before us to amend the Constitution to ensure that same sex marriages can never occur in any State in this country.

This legislation is all about politics. You know that you do not have the votes to pass this proposal. You have said so publicly. This proposal already failed in the Senate earlier this year. You know you do not have the time to spend on this proposal: the new fiscal year begins tomorrow and the Republican leadership has only managed to get 1 of 13 required appropriations bills passed. But you're going to make time for one reason: to get material for TV commercials.

You want TV commercials to run against Democrats. You think that they'll go nicely alongside the Republican National Committee's mailings saying Democrats want to ban the Bible and the ads that say that decorated war veterans are un-American traitors if they oppose the policies of the present occupant of the White House.

This vote is about hurting Democrats running for reelection. You want to hurt those of us opposed to amending the Constitution to deny gays and lesbians the rights that the rest of us enjoy, but the real hurt is unleashed on some of our nation's families: the millions of gay couples and lesbian couples, and their children.

People on both sides of this issue have sincere and deep feelings that deserve to be taken seriously. But today's vote mocks their concerns: they think you are out here on the floor to discuss who will be allowed to be a family in America, when you are really out here to work on who will be a Member of Congress after the election.

Today's vote is about Republicans toying with the emotions of a nation that genuinely

cares about commitment, about families, and about the institution of marriage. To the Republicans, our Nation's emotions--our fear and our worries--are to be employed and manipulated for their reelection campaigns.

The House of Representatives's rules are governed by the Jefferson Manual, and the majority has the right under our rules to bring this measure to the floor. But Jefferson's greatest manual was the Declaration of Independence, which reads in part, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Exactly how that part of our Nation's creed will play out as our citizens grapple with notions of domestic partnerships, civil unions and same sex marriages is yet to be seen. It will certainly not be decided today.

Nowhere in the Declaration does it say that these rights are only for white, heterosexual men.

Jefferson opened the doors of liberty to all of us, Mr. Speaker. It's a disgrace that this body is using Jefferson rules to attempt to undo Jefferson's and the Western World's most profound achievement-- acknowledge that we are all equal.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Republicans have planned a very busy week. The House passed nearly three dozen bills last night, all without debate. That has to sounds impressive. The House unanimously passed legislation on everything from naming a post office to snake control. It is known as the suspension calendar. It means its Republicans have placed the House in suspended animation until after the election.

Does a post office need a name? Sure. But America needs affordable health care first, and is not getting it; America needs consumer confidence, and the Republicans are not providing that; and America needs a plan to deal with the chaos in Iraq. But forget that under this administration. That is why they are changing the story of why we went to Iraq in the first place.

America's priorities have been in suspended animation for 4 years. But the wake-up call is coming on the 2nd of November.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to quote the votes of Senators in the other body in the midst of a speech?

In the other body, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, so anything that has occurred in debate on an issue that is in the body here that has been debated in the Senate, we can bring in the Senate debate?

Mr. Speaker, so if a speech has been made by a Senator on an issue that we are discussing here, we can use it verbatim from the Senate?

I thank the Speaker for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing to hear the chairman of the Committee extolling the virtues of the other body. It is a very unusual occurrence here on the floor of the House in that we should always follow what the Senate does. That should not be, I think, our goal.

The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel's) motion is among the most important votes that this body will take this year. In fact, it may be the most important proposals that we have considered since the resolution that authorized the President to send people to war in Iraq.

The legislation that passed out of this House and will be taken up in the conference committee aims to raise taxes on domestic companies and lower taxes on firms that move oversees. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to raise taxes on U.S. exporters and lower taxes on U.S. firms with overseas operations.

The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel's) motion will instruct our House negotiators to make certain that tax incentives that exist for corporations moving overseas are not increased. What is wrong with that? I mean what is wrong with that?

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that you instructed Republicans to vote against this proposal. You cannot be serious.

Our trade deficit reached an all-time high this year. Our country is selling fewer things to foreigners than we buy from them, which explains why the government data says we lost at least 1.5 million jobs due to foreign trade and outsourcing since Mr. Bush took office.

Why do the Republicans respond to this news by increasing tax incentives for U.S. firms to move overseas? I mean, I know that the President indicated that outsourcing is good, but does the Congress believe that? Does the House believe it? The Senate voted overwhelmingly. Well, that fixes it.

I guess we have got to go along with that. Get your rubber stamp, because if you vote against this motion, we are rubber-stamping the Bush outsourcing policy.

U.S. firms are continuing to set up overseas operations because our Tax Code and the Bush administration encourage it. Republicans would have us believe that high taxes, government regulation, and labor unions are making the United States a less attractive place to do business. That assertion is bogus.

First, the Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation says that the overall tax burden and the corporate tax burden in the United States are among the lowest in the developed world. Corporate U.S. income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is smaller than nearly every other developed country on the planet, and it is the lowest level since the Second World War.

Now, although corporate profits surged last year, the corporations paid significantly less taxes. The United States is simply the tax haven of the developed world.

Second, the World Bank issued a report 3 weeks ago entitled ``Doing Business: Benchmark Business Regulation.'' It compares how regulations affect businesses in different countries. The report shows that the ability to obtain credit, acquire capital, register property, hire and fire workers and enforce contracts, in other words, to start and maintain a successful business, is easier in the United States than any other developed country, including India and China.

But, nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. firms are relocating overseas to save money. Why? It is simple. The Tax Code encourages it. It provides tax incentives to U.S. firms who set up any kind of operation, from establishing a mailbox in Bermuda or building a factory in China overseas.

Take, for example, the article that appeared in Tax Notes on Monday. It shows that companies are using the Tax Code to justify shifting profits offshore. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry, who we gave a huge bonanza to in this body, has alone, since Bush has taken office, their offshore profits have surged 35 percent. I hope the old folks are listening to that. But their offshore activities and assets did not really change.

What does this mean? It means that at a time when our country faces the challenge of our generation, at a time when the costs of war are mounting, the Republicans are protecting a Tax Code that rewards corporations for moving profits and jobs offshore.

You are not only protecting the current Tax Code, Mr. Speaker, but unless the House votes to adopt the motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Republican Congress will worsen the Tax Code by making offshoring and outsourcing more lucrative.

Get out your clippers, Mr. Speaker, because this body is considering fleecing American workers and American firms that do business the old- fashioned way, that produce here to export overseas.

If John Kerry were President, we could save us from this Congress. He has the plan to remove the tax incentives that reward companies that move overseas. If he were President, he would veto this legislation that this body proposes. But we have got to wait for another 34 or 35 days. I cannot wait until the 2nd of November.

Madam Speaker, the three Rs used to stand for reading, writing and arithmetic. Now the three Rs stand for Republican rhetoric is not reality. Here is the proof.

Under this administration, Bermuda has become corporate America's favorite destination. And I am not talking about vacations. The Tax Code encourages and rewards U.S. companies to set up storefronts offshore to exploit their profits, with $75 billion last year alone, and avoid U.S. taxes.

And if the administration has its way, it will get even worse. The armored trucks, loaded with U.S. corporate profits, will be lining up at the docks waiting to transfer the money out of our country. It is made to work that way. Policies by the administration and approved by the Republican House are costing the American people between $10 billion and $20 billion a year in exported tax revenue, money that should go for health care, education, senior citizens, and worker retraining. The need is there but the revenue is somewhere else.

U.S. companies deserve to make a profit, but America deserves to have everyone pay their fair share to support the country that gave them the opportunity to make those profits. Indeed, the administration has put corporate interests ahead of America's interests. It is a double-edged sword and both sides are hurting the American people.

More corporate profits are being shifted offshore and more corporate expenses are being shifted on to the workers. Over the last 4 years, health care premiums paid by American workers have risen three times faster than the average earnings. Today, over 14 million Americans spend at least 25 percent of their earnings on health care costs.

And let me clarify something, Madam Speaker, before the Republican rhetoric kicks in. Those 14 million Americans, spending at least 25 percent of their earnings on health care, all of them are under the age of 65. It is the middle class, in other words, that is being struck under the burden of administration policies that put corporate interests ahead of America's interests.

Over the last 4 years, health care premiums in 26 States have risen more than 40 percent. What did the administration do in response? Reward the drug companies with more profits and renege on a promise to senior citizens. Americans today, old and young alike, are paying more and earning less. And Americans are going to be paying a lot more in the coming years.

When the administration exported the U.S. Treasury into the bank accounts of the rich, America was left holding an IOU that is a black hole on America's future. There is no way to see in it, through it, or out of it. Fully one-half of that massive deficit this year alone is a direct result of the administration's fiscal binge. They have created a mountain of debt and a mole hill of economic progress.

Despite the Republican rhetoric, the administration is short at least 100,000 jobs per month. Per month. Despite the Republican rhetoric, the American people know that. Consumer confidence was down again last month because people are not buying the administration's rhetoric. The number of consumers saying jobs are hard to come by went up. Consumers drive the U.S. economy. They are worried, and with good reason. The number of people living in poverty is up. The number of people without health care coverage is up. The number of people who have exhausted long-term employment benefits is dramatically up.

And then, Madam Speaker, there is Iraq. Escalating casualties, chaos, and crisis lead the President to conclude things are getting better. That must explain why over one-third of former soldiers called up this month and ordered to report for active duty in Iraq have not shown up.

Americans can tell the difference between a photo op in the Rose Garden and a reality check in Iraq. Things are not getting better. At every opportunity to talk straight to the American people, the administration has chosen to sacrifice credibility in hopes of perpetuating its story. Trouble is, the real story about Iraq is every night on the news. The administration can try and change the rhetoric, but the American people are not changing the channel. They know what they see and read. They know it is not what the administration claims. They know that only new leadership will solve the crisis in Iraq and revive the economy at home.

The administration had its chance, again and again and again and again. The rhetoric got better, even as the reality got worse, and even as we went further into debt, and even though the debt is the biggest we have ever had in our history in 1 year. That is the choice facing America. Believe the administration's rhetoric about Iraq and the economy, or elect John Kerry to take care of reality.

Mr. Speaker, today, we had hoped to hear a realistic assessment of Iraq, but unfortunately, although the voice was different, the words were the same. We just heard the administration's Iraqi administrator say what the administration says over and over again: Be afraid.

With no plan to win the peace and no grasp on the magnitude of the chaos in Iraq, the administration relies on fear and photo ops to divert attention, trying to get Americans to forget the deception, incompetence and outright failure this administration used to turn the country upside down. They cannot stop what Americans see and read, so they try to preempt it, using the two words that define this administration: Be afraid.

Be afraid is their answer to the economy, the war, the deficit, the people without health care and Iraq in complete chaos.

Be afraid is what they say, but what they mean is, be afraid of them. Do not forget to vote on November 2.