Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation makes an important technical fix to ensure that Congress' intent is carried out and that States have improved financial incentives to help more children in foster care find permanent, loving adoptive homes.

This legislation continues a long tradition of bipartisan activity by the Ways and Means Committee, a tradition designed to promote the adoption of children from foster care. In 1997, the committee played a key role in crafting the landmark Adoption and Safe Families Act; in 2003 the Adoption Promotion Act; and last fall the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. These laws streamline the adoption process. They encourage more efforts to quickly move children from foster care into permanent, loving homes, and they helped achieve the dramatic increases in the number of children successfully adopted from foster care in the past decade. In each case, the legislation was designed to benefit children who face some of the most daunting personal challenges in our country--those who have spent years, sometimes practically all of their lives, in the foster care system.

The legislation before us today would ensure the goals of last year's bipartisan Fostering Connections law are realized. That legislation encouraged increased adoptions from foster care by revising the Adoption Incentives Program and by extending its authorization through fiscal year 2013.

Among other improvements, the Fostering Connections law gave States more generous Federal funds if they helped more families adopt children now languishing for years in foster care, especially older and disabled children.

Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill, which passed through the House with limited consideration, included an error that effectively overrides some of the improvements in last year's Fostering Connections law. In short, the omnibus bill incorrectly stipulated that adoption incentive funds should be provided under the old, less generous rules Congress wanted to replace instead of the new, more generous rules included in the Fostering Connections law.

This legislation makes a simple repair of ensuring that congressional intent is followed so that States have the full intended incentives to promote the adoption of older and disabled children in foster care, among others. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this technical fix has no cost.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Camp and Rangel--ranking member and chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means respectively--for introducing legislation to correct this error in the House. Their bill, H.R. 1840, is identical to the

legislation before us, S. 735, which Senators Baucus and Grassley introduced in the Senate and worked to pass earlier this month.

I encourage all Members to support this important legislation so it can be signed into law as quickly as possible.

April 15, 2009.

Hon. Charles Rangel, Chairman,

Hon. Dave Camp, Ranking Member,

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Rangel and Camp: On behalf of the

American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) and its

affiliate the National Association of Public Child Welfare

Administrators (NAPCWA), we applaud and support your efforts

to fix the incentive program for states that increase their

numbers of adoptions from foster care and support H.R. 1840.

As you know, the adoption incentive program, originally

part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-

89), was reauthorized in the previous Congress through the

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act

of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). States perform well when provided

with incentives. Between 1998 and 2006, states received

approximately $211 million in incentive bonuses for

increasing the number of children adopted from foster care.

During the same time period, nearly half a million children

were adopted from state custody. Today, the waiting child

population tends to have higher special needs and may pose

challenges for caseworkers to find families willing to adopt

them.

The reauthorizing language reset the base number of

adoptions a state needs to finalize to earn an incentive

bonus to FY 2007. For each child adopted above that baseline,

a state will continue to receive $4,000. Recognizing that

older children and children with special needs may be more

difficult to place in adoptive homes, Congress improved the

bonus awards. The incentive amount for adopted children nine

or older increased from $4,000 to $8,000 and adopted special

needs children increased from $2,000 to $4,000. For the first

time, Congress also added an increased rate of adoptions

bonus for states. To earn this bonus, states must achieve a

``foster care adoption rate'' that exceeds its previous

``highest ever foster child adoption rate'' back to 2002

adoption numbers. Moreover, states now have 24 months to

spend incentive funds on any Title IV-E and IV-B programs.

These were significant improvements to the program that

would help many children languishing in foster care find

permanent loving homes with adoptive families. However, due

to an oversight, the recent Omnibus 2009 Appropriations Act

(P.L. 111-8) changed the adoption incentive program back to

pre-Fostering Connections. Prior to the reset of the

baseline, many states were unable to reach continued higher

goals of finalized adoptions and the numbers of children

waiting to be adopted were starting to decline in many

states.

On behalf of those that work so diligently to find homes

for waiting children, we thank you for fixing this oversight.

You are true champions for our nation's most vulnerable

children.

Sincerely,

Jerry Friedman,

Executive Director.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for organizing this Special Order.

I think it might be good right now to repeat what the Fair Tax is.

The Fair Tax would repeal all taxes on income. No more corporate income tax, personal income tax, no more payroll tax. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. That pays for Social Security and Medicare. We would get rid of the gift tax, the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax. No more tax on income at all. And instead, we would tax a national sales tax on everything that you purchased.

On average today, the average income American gives the government 33 cents out of every dollar he earns. Under the Fair Tax, they would give the government 23 cents out of every dollar they spend and raise the same amount of money.

Now we are going to come to this point because economic forces are going to drive us to this point. I had the privilege of visiting with Chairman Bernanke last week or 10 days ago or so. One day, whether I am here or not, this Congress is going to decide the only way to go is to a more fair tax, that taxes not what you put into society, but what you take out.

Today we know that on average, 22 percent of what you pay for is the embedded cost to the IRS. With all of the companies that it takes to get a loaf of bread to your table, there are payroll taxes, income taxes, there are compliance costs, they get embedded in that price system. That is the only way a business can pay a bill is through price. And you pay that business' light bill, their rent, and their tax bill.

If we have a price system that is inflated by 22 percent because of the embedded cost of the IRS, that makes us less than competitive in a global economy and jobs move into better tax jurisdictions offshore.

Secondly, the Tax Foundation said that last year we spent $350 billion filling out IRS paperwork. We spend another $125 billion a year calculating the tax implications of a business decision. If we are spending in excess of $450 billion a year just to fill out forms to send them in, that is inefficient. That is stupid. It is like paying for a dead horse. You get nothing from the transaction.

Third, the underground economy is about $2 trillion a year. And the more complex our code gets, the easier it is to go underground and avoid paying taxes. They are not contributing.

Fourth, there is today in offshore financial centers in dollar- denominated deposits $13 trillion. My point to Chairman Bernanke was this: that is money that would be on shore in our markets, in our banks, if we didn't have an IRS.

All four of those issues: the embedded costs, the compliance costs, the underground economy, and the offshore investments, would be eliminated and fixed by getting rid of the IRS. None of them will be touched by nibbling around the edges of our current tax system.

Fifth is this point. We are having a serious problem starting in real estate in America because people can't afford to pay their mortgages. Some made bad choices, but that is a simple fact. Under the Fair Tax the average income earner would have a 50 percent increase in take-home pay. They would pay their mortgages. Now all of this stuff gets fixed in the economy without spending $700 billion here and $700 billion there without raising taxes and everything, as Mr. Mica said.

Lastly, this point: we have never taxed wealth in America; we tax wages. The first thing very wealthy people do is stop getting wages so they pay 15 percent on capital gains and dividends, and if the Obama plan goes through, they will pay a 20 percent tax. But they don't pay anything to Social Security

and Medicare because they have no wages.

When Mrs. Kerry had to release her tax return in 2004 during the Presidential election, it showed she had $5.1 million in income the previous year. She paid a 12 percent tax on it. She paid nothing into Social Security and Medicare. She had no wages. This taxes wealth when it is spent. It is fair to assume that she spent a good part of that $5 million on several houses and travel. And in that case if she had spent it all, she would have put $400,000 into Social Security and Medicare, but we don't tax wealth when it is spent today.

Now what would happen if all of this comes to pass? Our studies from outside consultants say that in the first year we would have a 10.6 percent increase in the GDP. I asked Chairman Greenspan when he was chairman if that was inflationary, and he said not at all. We would have a 72 percent in capital spending, and we know that real take-home pay for workers increases in exact correspondence to capital spending.

We would have jobs coming here. An informal study done at Princeton many years ago asked 500 international companies located in Europe and Japan: What would you do in your long-term planning if the United States eliminated all taxes on capital and labor and taxed only personal consumption? Eighty percent said they would build their next plant in the United States.

If you are selling to Detroit, you would rather be in Detroit because transportation costs are high. But we have driven them off with tax policy.

We have lots of debates on the floor of this House, but punishing people who go offshore, locking up their accounts, they are not leaving because they hate America, they are leaving because we kicked them offshore with confiscatory tax policies.

This will come to pass, and it will be fair, and I hope one day we can give back to the American people and the freest society ever known the privilege of anonymity. No one should know as much about us as our Tax Code. We should have no agency of the Federal Government that knows more about us than we are willing to tell our children. Under this system, there would be no agency that knew how you made your money, how much you made, or how you spent it. You could anonymously go into any store, buy something, have the tax collected there just like we do in 45 States with the sales tax, and we would contract with those States to collect the money and remit it to us. We would have a system of government that was fair.

Let me just close with this comment. During the debate in 1912 when income tax was hot and heavy in the United States, one southern Senator made a statement that was considered so ridiculous and outrageous that he was laughed off the floor of the Senate. Here is what he said. He said, ``Mark my words, if we pass this, in time they will be taking 10 percent of everything you earn.'' It was considered ridiculous, but it did bring back to mind my favorite country song, if 10 percent is enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam.

I think that is correct. And in the last Presidential election, Governor Huckabee did run on the Fair Tax. In your State, he won the Republican primary. And he told me he ran because of the Fair Tax Organization in Iowa. We have organizations in 50 States, and most States have dozens of them. These are people who, no matter that happens to me or you or the folks right now pushing this idea, they are not going to let it die. If you Google ``Fair Tax,'' you will find that they are meeting in every State, every week. Somewhere along the way it winds up in the literature.

The American people are going to demand this. If you remember the debates from the Republican primary, it came up in virtually every debate and brought down the house. So I don't think it is going to go away because the American people are not going to allow it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Griffin Bell was a friend of mine for maybe 20 years and a decent human being. I'm not going to go back and reflect on his contributions to his city, his State or his Nation. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Poe have already done that.

He served in many capacities in a decent way, but I just want to get something in the record. You never, ever will understand Griffin Bell until you understand what a wonderful sense of humor he had.

I moved to Georgia from Minnesota in 1969, almost 40 years ago, and one of the things we have in the South is respect for story telling and great good humor. And I have never heard a better one than Griffin Bell. And some of the stories he told me about he and Charlie Kirbo, who was another of President Carter's close personal advisers, as partners representing companies and individuals were just hilarious.

I want you to know that the Nation is going to miss a great man, and those of us who knew him are missing a great humorist.

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

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, which started in 1997, was for children, for children who lived in families who did not qualify for Medicaid but still needed health insurance programs. Today, four States have more adults in the program than children. It is being abused.

The health insurance program for children also required, originally, those in this country to show that they lived in this country legally, to have documentation. This program removes that proof. You now need only to say, ``Yes, I am here legally.'' It also removes the 5-year requirement. When you are here legally and you are sponsored by someone, they have to be responsible for taking care of your needs for 5 years. This is removed. What will happen if we follow on with an amnesty bill for the 20 million illegals who would be immediately eligible for the SCHIP program? Would it then be fully funded?

The funding, by the way, mostly by tobacco, falls on low-income people. The burden on the lowest 20 percent with the tobacco program is 37 times more burdensome than were it funded by an income tax. It also requires 22 million new smokers just to pay the bill. I want to see the majority go recruit them.

It is estimated that 2.4 million people will drop private insurance; families will drop because they qualify. Employers paying employees less than $80,000 a year will drop it. This isn't mean-spirited; it is in their interest. We saw this happen before.

In 1965, every physician and dentist in America had a file drawer full of patients that they treated for free. It was their community responsibility. When Medicare and Medicaid came along, they said, ``Well, my taxes are going up to pay for that. The government will now do it.'' And they dropped that responsibility, and the burden fell on the taxpayer.

With the upper limit disregards in this program on income ceilings, we essentially make 75 percent of all Americans eligible for the program. Again, I repeat. I have heard it said many times it is fully funded. And Lyndon Johnson said that about Medicare and Medicaid. I was in dental school and watched his great society speech. He said, ``We know, using easily quantifiable user statistics that, by 1990, Medicare will only cost $9 billion and Medicaid will only cost $1 billion.'' He was wrong. Medicare costs over $100 billion; Medicaid costs over $75 billion, and those entitlements are breaking this country.

The same is going to happen when the ceilings are taken off incomes and other people are put into this program. It will not be fully funded by tobacco.

This program will pay less than one-half the reimbursement to providers through Medicare or SCHIP that currently Blue Cross pays. And those providers are going to disappear from the program. We are already seeing it in Medicare and Medicaid. Who is going to be left to treat these people?

There was a real bipartisan effort to reauthorize this program last year, to expand its income protections and to increase the money to pay for it. It wasn't enough for the majority. They wanted to make it for everybody all of the time. This will not work.

I will vote against it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that nobody on this side opposes children. The SCHIP program was started under the Republican majority in 1997, principal sponsor being Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.

We believe the program was a good start in allowing for the health coverage of children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid. What will destroy this program is a lack of restraint and irresponsible expansion of it.

It is true we are in the midst of a global economic collapse. And what has caused that? Abuse, lack of restraint, corporate leaders spending other people's money, shareholders, ignored limitations, ignored risks, ignored warning signs, and gave us the problem we have in the economy.

What makes us different? We are spending other people's money and we're spending more and more of it. We have a GAO study that says that if we continue to spend in our discretionary spending at the current percentage of the overall economy, and if we continue to tax at 19 percent of GDP, which is about the average since 1945, that in just 31 years from today, the entire Federal revenue stream will be insufficient to pay the interest on the debt because of entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, which is much worse than Social Security, Medicaid.

And to solve those programs in the face of President Obama's desire to get a handle on entitlements, we stand here today proposed to add a new one. It is true that this is designed as a block grant program. But there are no limitations on it. This will go out of control just like all of the other programs have, and our children will pay.

Madam Speaker, I hope we all oppose this.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we have all heard the proverb that if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. If you teach him to fish, he can eat for a lifetime. This bill is full of fish going to deserving people to eat for 1 day. There is nothing in here for fishing rods. There is nothing in here for training.

To get out of the slump, we need to get people who are unemployed employed in real jobs with real companies. We have the second highest tax on corporations in the world. Lowering that tax burden would help get people hired. To hire people, most of whom will be hired by small businesses, the owner of that business needs a predictable future. This gives him none of that.

The other side is very proud to say that 95 percent are going to get a tax cut. But that tax cut means a refundable tax credit for people who do not pay taxes. Today, 15 million people get their income tax rebated plus a payroll tax plus more from the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, when SCHIP first passed about a dozen years ago, Georgia's program was called Peach Care. It was open to large numbers of people, and millions signed up, many of whom came off private health insurance to do so. A friend of mine, who made $150,000 a year, signed up too. She never used it. But you could sign up by the Internet.

Some of that's been tightened up, but this bill opens that back up again. You're eligible by just stating your Social Security Number, no need to prove who you are.

The 5-year waiting period that's always been in place for legal immigrants who come here sponsored, is erased. And we all know that sooner or later we're going to have an amnesty for those 20 million illegals, and that will dwarf this system.

I was in dental school in 1936 when Lyndon Johnson delivered the great society speech; and he said, using easily quantifiable user statistics, we know that by 1990, Medicare will cost $9 billion, and Medicaid will cost $1 billion. He was wrong. And this will be abused also.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

That wasn't the motion. The motion was to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Would you tell me who changed the ruling from ``appeal'' to ``sustain''?

I ask unanimous consent that the vote be restarted.

I ask unanimous consent that we vacate this vote.

So moved.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent again that we vacate the vote.

I would object.

Will the gentleman yield?

As a matter of fact, I was in the Chair and I was accused of shutting down the vote while people were in the well seeking to vote. And the next day the C-SPAN tapes proved you were wrong and I was right. The people coming in to vote were not even not only in the well, they were not even on the floor. They were shouting ``one more.'' But Dick Armey reviewed the tapes to critique me and concluded that you were wrong and I was right.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I was a friend of Charlie's for over 30 years. We met in the early 1970s when he was the president of the Georgia Dental Association and I was a practicing dentist and a young State legislator.

Charlie never ever was in neutral, and he rarely ever backed up. It was full go ahead. The great story about him in the Army was he changed the way they were doing business, moving dentists to forward-fire bases. His commander called him and said, I want a daily report of what you are doing there that is out of the ordinary. Charlie said to him, Well, I have got a chair here. You come down here and set your own butt on it and write your own report. I just don't have time. The colonel did come down, and they changed the entire way the Army did business because of Charlie's ideas.

When he got involved shortly thereafter in the Georgia Dental Association, he did the same thing. He just took charge and became president. He traveled all over the State of Georgia fighting for important things for patients' welfare. His campaign in 1994 was a joy to watch, just a joy to watch, yard signs everywhere and him moving as fast as he could from one house to the next, from one hand to the next. He was just a remarkably good campaigner.

Then he came here and he introduced a very important bill. I didn't agree with him on the bill, but he didn't slow down at all.

The fact that the House and the Senate did not sign the patients' bill of rights did not mean it wasn't important. The changes it brought in the relationships between HMOs and patients are there today because of the pressure of that legislation and will be there forever. Charlie was a remarkable human being and one whom I have loved for a very long time and will miss.

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to pay tribute to the United States Air Force, on the occasion of its sixtieth anniversary. This special day provides us with an important opportunity to recognize and honor the men and women who have made our Nation's Air Force the greatest air power in the world. As a former Captain in the U.S. Air Force myself, I shared a willingness to protect and defend the United States of America with all my fellow airmen and airwomen.

On September 18, 1947, the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted, and the U.S. Air Force was officially formed. Although it is the newest unit of the four military branches, the U.S. Air Force has rapidly evolved into a segment of our armed services that embodies the fundamental core values and aptitude of our Nation's military foundation.

In the fifth century B.C., Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu said that the ``The art of employing troops is that when the enemy occupies high ground, do not confront him.'' Drawing on the teachings of Sun Tzu and nineteenth century military historian and theorist Carl von Clausewitz, military leaders over the past 200 years have sought to perfect their craft in warfare. Until the 20th century, however, the might of a country's military forces was still incomplete. While nation-states throughout the world had successfully developed their ground and sea forces, it was not until the advent of aircraft that the nature of warfare would be altered dramatically and permanently, thus finally permitting our armed services to confront the enemy on high ground.

Still, it took time to develop the technology and practice of air power so that it matched its theoretical potential. Even though the technology for capable air power existed for the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam and Korean wars, the United States had not developed the capability of air power thoroughly enough to derive full benefit from its use until the Gulf War.

Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel John Warden, the initial architect of the gulf war's air campaign, ``Instant Thunder,'' once theorized that the most important effect that air power would have in war would be its ability to destabilize the will and morale of the enemy's military leadership. The use of American air power in the gulf war and Operation Iraqi Freedom successfully proved Colonel Warden's theory true.

The U.S. Air Force is unmatched in its technological prowess, providing air and space superiority on demand, and playing an important role in America's nuclear deterrence. The U.S. Air Force is revolutionary in that it is an expeditionary air force: It gets our ground forces to the fight, and gets our air power in the fight. Our Nation's Air Force has essentially provided our ground and naval forces with the tools necessary to successfully fight asymmetrical warfare by turning the landscape into a symmetrical one.

The Great Narrative of the next 25 years will be the contest between globalization and parochialism. As communications and technology continue to flatten the world, the connected first-world nations will benefit and their vested interest in the global order's continued smooth functioning will encourage political stability and economic development. Those nations left behind will see globalization as a hostile force and may fight against it. It is those same countries that also tend to serve as fertile breeding grounds for radical ideologies. The challenge ahead lies in folding these countries into the new global order.

The battle we face today in the global war on terror is the same battle we will face tomorrow, and it is a war we will continue to fight throughout our lifetime. In some ways, this war is not unlike the cold war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union; a monumental surgical strike will not immediately and forever decimate the enemy. This war will take time, and will require the prolonged use of a clear, inclusive, and engaging national military strategy.

Currently, our armed services continue to focus on ``muddy boots'' requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must remember that this would not be possible without the work of our Nation's Air force. In the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. Air Force paved the way for our men and women on the ground so that they could conduct military to-military training, counter-drug, counter-terrorist, and homeland defense missions in Operation Enduring Freedom.

It is my hope that as we celebrate the sixtieth birthday of the United States Air Force, we will be reminded of the tremendous sacrifices that our Air Force personnel and their families have made throughout the history of air power so that we may all continue to enjoy and pursue the opportunities afforded us by their significant role in protecting our democratic values. We must encourage innovation in the field, and I will do my part to ensure that our Air Force will be ready to meet the future with the tools they need to capitalize on new technologies, to maximize transport of equipment and military personnel, and to provide our boots on the ground with the landscape necessary to continue to deter, prevent, and punish acts of terrorism and piracy in the U.S. and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Would you tell us how much time they have combined, the two committees and our two committees combined, left?

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, about 2 years ago, the Government Accountability Office brought before the Ways and Means Committee a study that said if we continue to tax at the current percentage of the economy and continue to spend in discretionary spending at the current percentage of the economy that just 33 years from today the entire Federal revenue stream will be insufficient to just pay the interest on the debt.

I know the Democrats will say raise taxes. In 100 percent of the time in the last 60 times that we have raised taxes, we have slowed the economy and slowed revenues.

This Congress will not reduce spending. So what is their solution to our dilemma? The problems are, as the GAO said, three entitlement programs, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. They propose to give us another one, with no caps, expanding coverage to illegal immigrants, by the language from the CBO, expanding coverage to adults with no children, by the definition of their act, and allowing the States to lift the ceiling on eligibility entirely.

This is a back-door or front-door entrance for Hillary care, national health care. You will recall that in that program if a doctor treated a patient for free outside the system, they are liable for criminal fines. That isn't in this bill, yet.

Is this a 5-minute vote that occurred because of a unanimous consent request?

First of all, is this a 5-minute vote?

Is it the result of a unanimous consent request?

It is my understanding that any intervening business requires a 15-minute vote on the following vote under the rules of the House, and there was intervening business.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In 1928, two gentlemen in Congress by the names of Smoot and Hawley drafted a bill to reduce tariffs to broadly increase markets, particularly for farmers. And after 4 years, it became not a tariff reduction bill, but a tariff increase bill. And all our trading partners responded in kind, leaving us a dust bowl in the ``Grapes of Wrath.''

If you don't think they're going to respond in kind to this, you're nuts. Toyota is not located in Barbados. Honda is not located in the Caribbean islands. These companies pay huge American taxers and hire millions and millions of our neighbors. They sell product in this country, they sell product for dollars. And the only value that dollar has for them is to spend it in a dollar-denominated economy, and they spend in America and they buy companies.

If you don't believe that this 4 to $6 billion tax increase on foreign capital is going to cause a response, you're simply not paying attention to history.

Vote this tax increase down.