Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today's bill certainly does not do enough for America's children; but even too little is too much for President Bush, who seems intent on doing for America's children what he did as Governor for the children of Texas, condemning more and more of them to suffer without health insurance.

As Governor, Mr. Bush refused to lead for Texas children. Our children's health insurance was late, very late. And once we got it, he did all he could to see that as few children as possible were covered, even though the Federal Government was picking up almost 75 cents of every dollar of the bill. Texas has actually refused about $1 billion of Federal money to help our children. And by insisting on such neglect from the start, Mr. Bush has ensured that Texas has the proud record of being number one of all the 50 States in having the highest percentage of children with no health insurance.

Now in alliance with the nicotine peddlers opposing this bill, once again President Bush's greatest concern is that too many children will get insurance coverage. He actually demands that some children must wait an entire year with no insurance at all before they are eligible for CHIP coverage.

Why doesn't the child of a waitress, the child of a construction worker, the child of one of the many workers at a small business that can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, why doesn't that child deserve a healthy start in life? Painful earaches, a strep throat, a cavity, they deserve swift treatment, not waiting. As President Bush so disdainfully said last month, just take them to the emergency room. It's that kind of indifference, combined with his record in Texas, that demonstrates indifference to the needs of our children and their health insurance as nothing new for our President. But if he prevails today, the number of children who will suffer without adequate health insurance will be even bigger than Texas.

He calls this approach compassionate conservatism. I think most Americans would just call it ``cheatin' children.''

Madam Speaker, the troop surge in Iraq has clearly failed. It has failed to achieve its purpose. The troop surge has failed not because of our troops, but because of the failures of politicians here in Washington and in Iraq. This President's surge has been as successful as the President's boast to catch Osama bin Laden ``dead or alive.''

We now have three reports from entities at least somewhat independent from the Bush propaganda machine that confirm the obvious. The National Intelligence Estimate providing the thinking of the intelligence community that, instead of getting better, the situation in Iraq will get worse: ``The Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next 6 to 12 months.'' The Independent Commission on Security Forces concluded that the Iraqi Interior Ministry is ``dysfunctional.'' It is so bad that it cannot be fixed; they recommend that it be disbanded. The Government Accountability Office evaluated the surge, and it judged President Bush's policy using his own criteria with a clear ``F,'' a clear failure, a fiasco, a fatal flop, with only 3 of 18 benchmarks having been met.

Today, General Petraeus can cite whatever selective statistics that his political bosses may permit him to disclose, but the facts are that each and every month this year has involved more deaths of American troops than each month, including August last year. And despite the ethnic cleansing that has already displaced 3.5 million Iraqis, the increasing violence continues to inflict an increasingly deadly toll on Iraqi families.

What is life like for those Iraqis who survive? Almost half earn less than $1 a day; 70 percent lack access to adequate water; and 1/3 remain in dire need of emergency food aid.

When the surge was announced, the White House said ``wait until the summer.'' And as summer approached, the White House said ``wait until September.'' Well, now that this much overrated September is here, they cry ``wait until next year.''

The only real mystery about President Bush's September decision has been what new excuse he would offer to justify staying the same old deadly course. And as the American people have seen through the duplicity of each and every other excuse, the President has returned to his original ploy: 9/11, coincidentally, just as we receive this report on the anniversary of 9/11. He claims that ``the same folks that are bombing . . . in Iraq are the ones who attacked us in America on September 11.'' That is false and he knows it is false. But fear with deception is all he has left to rationalize the pain of the many, the sacrifice of the brave, and the loss of $3 billion every single week.

As usual, this President is dead certain and dead wrong. What he seeks is war without limits, war without end. Under his direction, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker propose a war that continues for probably another decade, the ``George Bush Trillion dollar, 15-Year War.''

Now Congress must respond to the President's propaganda surge with a truth surge, with a memory surge, reminding America of the repeated false cries of ``progress'' and phony excuses that have only brought our families more insecurity. Congress must learn from the courage continually displayed by our troops. Appeasement will not stop these wrong-headed Administration policies. More blank checks will only drain our national treasury while fueling more death and destruction that only endangers American families.

And so today we note the surge has failed, but we respectfully and sincerely thank General Petraeus and all of our troops who serve America and are doing their jobs. But we know we must do our job. It is long past time for Congress to act. Our best hope remains a safe and orderly, fully-funded, phased redeployment that begins immediately.

Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the energy bill just approved and the passage of this energy bill today, we move America in a historic direction, a new direction on energy, not just away from our overdependence on fossil fuels, but away from our overdependence on fossilized ideas like those that have dominated this House for the last 12 years.

One of those fossilized ideas is that it is okay to keep borrowing from our grandchildren. So today the reason that we hear talk about higher taxes on a bill that is basically revenue neutral, that doesn't borrow from our grandchildren and doesn't raise significant new revenues, but rather restricts and evaluates our tax credits to determine how they can be most effective, is that they don't understand this new kind of thinking.

Just as they favored foreign corporations over farmers last week, today they favor fossilized energy over new energy and energy independence.

You know, going green is not just about securing a healthy planet to raise our children. It is creating opportunities for jobs and economic development in biodiesel and in renewable energy like solar and geothermal power. New technologies bring new opportunities. A new class of jobs are being created, neither blue collar nor white collar but green collar jobs of many types from green energy.

It is a matter of recognizing that some boondoggles come along, like where a oil company decides it will drop a little dab of grease in its petroleum byproducts in order to claim a renewable biodiesel tax credit and destroy a new emerging industry like our biodiesel companies and our biofuels companies that are helping us become energy independent.

So this is a bill about jobs and about evaluating the oversubsidization of a fossil fuel industry and moving to new energies, biodiesel, recognizing the power of solar power, plug-in hybrids, recognizing that we can become the leaders in the world in green jobs, green collar jobs. This bill offers us a chance to lead on green energy, not become green with envy as other countries leap over us.

Mr. Speaker, we know, first of all, what is not in this motion to recommit. What is not in this motion to recommit is anything about the exciting new opportunity with plug-in hybrids. This has been deleted from the bill with this motion to recommit.

We know, as the gentleman from Washington is just saying, that what those who have worked so hard in solar power have requested, an 8-year extension so we can get the investment. We heard from investment bankers saying you need that kind of dependability in order to get the money that solar power needs to expand particularly throughout the South and Southwest. That will not be available under this Republican proposal.

But what is in this proposal? Well, after all of the very strange comments that have been made about denying mom an opportunity to drive an SUV, the same tax on Hummers that is in our proposal is in their motion to recommit. Look at the bill. Look at the scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation for the motion to recommit at page 2, line 7, and you will see exactly that same matter.

In fact, after all the talk about how we don't want taxes on the petroleum industry, when I look at their proposal, I find almost $1 billion in taxes on gasoline that they are proposing in their motion to recommit.

When I look at the line just above that in the same scoring document, I find almost $1 billion that is proposed by them in a tax on coal.

Now, there may be a need to do that at some point as we build our energy future here.

But everyone who votes for their motion to recommit, they need to understand today that they are voting for about $1 billion in gasoline taxes and almost $1 billion in taxes on coal, all at the same time they are denying our renewable industries what they need in wind and solar. They are denying them the dependability necessary to attract private investment to let those industries grow.

You know, we have so much fossilized thinking that we must overcome if we are to combat the real threat of climate change that endangers our country, that is perhaps our greatest long-term national security challenge. It's certainly a challenge to our health and our future.

And we also have to address the need for a new energy future that does not leave us dependent on foreign sources of energy. We have ample solar power here, we have great potential in this country, if we are willing to make the hard decisions to not be bound by the ideas of the past and move to the future.

You can do that today by rejecting this motion to recommit. When you reject the motion to recommit, you will also be rejecting about $1 billion in taxes on gasoline, about $1 billion in taxes on coal.

Madam Speaker, of course, that letter is one of many endorsements of groups coming together because they know that today they are improving health care for our oldest Americans and our youngest Americans.

Unfortunately, my home State of Texas has the distinction of being number one in children with no health insurance, largely due to the indifference of then Governor George Bush who responded too late and too little. His indifference to the health crisis now is hardly surprising given his indifference then.

The Republican prescription drug plan, the largest entitlement increase in recent history, is a study in how to let Medicare ``wither on the vine'' at the time they inject waste, fraud and abuse into the system.

Now Republicans are using every available obstructionist tactic to block our reforms, to curb their own excesses, such as their lavishing billions on big insurance companies. Despite their professed interest in controlling entitlement spending, only two of their 21 committee amendments would have reduced spending and the vast majority would have increased spending on borrowed money.

Their sermons about Medicare insolvency are betrayed by their insistence on undermining it, and their silly claims of ``socialized medicine'' are belied by the bill's endorsement by the American Medical Association and the AARP.

Approve this rule and afford seniors and children the health care that Republican obstructionism would deny them.

Mr. Speaker, could you give us a time report? How much time remains for each?

How much does the gentleman from Louisiana have?

None of it has been used.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Surely if Lance Armstrong can overcome mountains in France, we can overcome the mountains of obstructionism and of excuses to provide our children and our seniors the health coverage that they need.

By including significant portions of two Medicare bills that I filed, today's legislation supports grandparents as well as grandchildren. All seniors would get preventive care, and many of the 3.3 million poor seniors not receiving any help today would get the extra help for which they qualify.

Today, those seniors most in need are often least aware that help exists. We must identify and notify those entitled to extra help with prescription drugs and simplify the application process.

We also ensure that drug coverage is not lost by our seniors who saved a small nest egg or receive help and groceries from their children--behavior that we ought to encourage, not punish.

Importantly, we mandate that patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, and mental illness receive access to life-saving medications. Without this protection, vulnerable patients are held hostage by ``cost cutting decisions'' by private insurance companies.

While Lance inspires us to live strong, we can ``vote strong'' and improve the lives of children, seniors, and Americans fighting to get well again. Approve this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy that throughout this debate not one company anywhere in America has come forward and said ``if you pass this bill, you raise my taxes,'' because the vast majority of foreign companies and no American companies are impacted whatsoever.

Today, we must choose who to stand with. We choose to stand with the farm and ranch families that need this assistance and the small American businesses that are paying their fair share of taxes. We reject the notion that the only way you can lure a foreign company to come to America is to tell the foreign company that they should pay less taxes than Americans. It is a clear choice.

Parliamentary Inquiries

New York Times, June 18, 2002. ``There would be no effect on legitimate multinational corporations like DaimlerChrysler that have not used a haven to avoid American taxes.''

Yesterday, 2:41 p.m., letter from Unilever Global Affairs vice president. He says that his company, which owns Ben and Jerry's, would not be affected by this bill.

What we've heard is nonsense. It's not evidence. Claims, not evidence.

Mr. Speaker, farm and ranch families deserve a safety net, and fiscal responsibility demands that we pay for it. We pay for this farm bill, every penny of it, and some of it is done by stopping one group of multinational corporations from dodging their United States tax liability. For too long they have enjoyed a free ride from these Republicans, at the expense of other American taxpayers. It is wrong, and we are putting a stop to it.

Our target is very narrow: No company headquartered in the United States of America will have its taxes go up one penny, nor will it have any significant impact on any foreign corporation with whom we have a tax treaty, as we do with most developed countries. Indeed, 90 percent of the revenue, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Tax Committee, comes from companies that have tax hideaways with these countries down in the Caribbean that have no tax treaty and no corporate taxes or little taxes. And the remaining 10 percent of revenue from their proposal, most of it is going to be simply a matter of shifting taxes between countries in tax credits.

I have listened to these Republicans identify one company after another that they cried big crocodile tears about, and I haven't heard them identify a single company that is likely to have an increase in its taxes as a result of this proposal.

There are others hiding in the shadows that know they have no justified case. And they have some of their friends out front, including one company that I read an e-mail from yesterday saying they don't like my bill, but it doesn't affect them a penny. That is the people that own Ben and Jerry's.

Well, today the Administration may be teaming up with those willing to kill this farm bill by defending these foreign tax evaders, but that is not the tune they were singing 5 years ago when in this Treasury report they said ``an appropriate, immediate response, an immediate response, should address the U.S. tax advantages that are available to foreign-based companies because of their ability to reduce the U.S. corporate tax on income from their American operations.''

Mr. Brady says Treasury did something about it? They sat on their rear and didn't do anything about it. And if you need any proof of that, gentleman, turn to the President's budget 5 months ago. He turned to this same source of revenue and all this job-killing tax proposal you are talking about. How many jobs did his $2 billion proposal that he put out here 5 months ago in February kill? Well, you haven't suggested there are any, because even this President, President Bush, admits there is a problem here that needs to be fixed, and this committee gets about fixing it.

You talk about jeopardizing 5 million jobs. What a lot of nonsense. That is all the jobs of all the foreign subsidiaries in the United States, the vast majority of which are corporations that are not touched by this proposal.

Your problem isn't jobs. Your problem is you never met a tax loophole you didn't like. You never met a tax dodger you didn't want to help. You have done a good job of doing it, and it is time we fix that.

I don't know why it is that a farm and ranch family in High Hill, Texas, or a drugstore on the main street of Bastrop, Texas, ought to have to pay higher relative taxes on their earnings than some multinational with a fancy CPA and a law firm and a hideaway in Bermuda.

It is wrong, and each of us must stand to choose between the two.

Point of Order

With heavy hearts, the thousands of Texans who participated in memorials to Lady Bird Johnson, especially those who filled the streets of Austin, Dripping Springs and Johnson City, attest to our affection and respect for her compassion, warmth and leadership. And with unusually heavy rainfall this year, Texas is literally alive with her legacy, the beautiful wildflowers along our roadways, and filling the photo albums and scrapbooks with children smiling in a bed of bluebonnets or Indian paintbrush for one family after another.

She knew a better America was one that gives all of its citizens an opportunity to succeed. And with the reauthorization this year of Head Start, more young Americans can access quality early education, ensuring that no child starts behind.

When my predecessor, Representative Jake Pickle, spoke on this floor after the death of President Johnson, he said that Mrs. Johnson was her husband's ``wisest adviser'', and that her daughters, Lynda Bird and Luci, had brought ``so much credit to their family and to our country.''

Of her many gifts, perhaps her most meaningful legacy is her spirit of giving that lives on in her children and grandchildren. In Austin, her daughter Lucy and her grandchildren, Catherine Robb and Nicole Covert, among others, give their time, support and leadership to causes such as SafePlace, Seton, the University of Texas, and the Children's Medical Center Foundation.

Mrs. Johnson promoted native species. They have strong roots and improve and beautify our land. The same, and more, can be said of the human legacy that she leaves.

Mr. Speaker, we were reassured that ``progress'' was being made in Iraq 500 deaths ago, 1,000 deaths ago, 2,000 deaths ago, and 3,000 deaths ago.

Like the boy who cried wolf, this President cries ``progress.'' What progress?

With all this talk about benchmarks, I think it's time to get off the bench and bring our troops home now, with an immediate, responsible, and safe redeployment.

President Bush says as we approach five years of being in Iraq, he says ``listen to the generals.''

Well, we've listened to them, and his top general says if we followed his course, if we stay his course, we'll be in Iraq fighting for another five to ten years.

Real progress would begin by adopting today's very modest proposal and moving forward united so that our troops are not caught up in a final disastrous position in Iraq, and that we responsibly redeploy to protect our families, rather than generating one generation after another of jihadists.

Madam Speaker, Lady Bird Johnson cared for all that is beautiful and vulnerable in the world. I think every child in a Head Start program, every wild flower gracing our highways is testament to her service.

In Austin we think of her years as well as after the White House, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, our Town Lake Trail, which families enjoy as a result of her concern.

Our thoughts and prayers are particularly with her daughters, Lucy Baines Johnson and Lynda Bird Robb, their children, who are themselves a testament to her tradition and public service. And at an appropriate time we would like to ask that the House observe a moment of silence.

Mr. Speaker, for over five years I have attempted to close a gaping loophole in the Lobby Disclosure Act that has permitted various lobbyists to form over 800 stealth or hidden coalitions to avoid the requirements of the act. That effort had been met with nothing but indifference. Finally we now have a new Congress and a new direction.

Under the legislation Mr. Conyers offers today, we incorporate the provisions of that Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act. Here is how it works: A lobbyist for an unpopular cause, like those who would avoid their taxes by renouncing their American citizenship and moving abroad, or by those who would deny climate change, instead of indicating who they actually represent, those lobbyists claim they represent a ``coalition'' of two or more individuals and avoid any indication of the true parties in interest.

When deep-pocketed interests spend big money to influence public policy, the public has a right to know. Even a little light can do a lot of good. If wealthy interests want legislators to sing their tune, the public has a right to know who is paying the piper.

Of course, President Harry Truman said, ``The buck stops here.'' But with stealth lobbying we don't know where ``here'' is or whose buck it is.

This stealth lobbyist disclosure provision helps close this loophole. The bill amends the definition of ``client'' to require the disclosure of the members of a coalition or association so that a small number of people or corporations can no longer operate under a shell group and destroy the intent of our lobby disclosure laws. Combining ``wealth'' with ``stealth'' is a recipe for unaccountable government.

After years of indifference, we have a new Congress dedicated to open government and the pursuit of the public interest. This rule and this legislation should be approved.

Mr. Speaker, year five of blunders, that is a true slow- bleed policy in Iraq.

Defeatism? Well, that is an Administration that lacks the courage to admit its failures and which pays for those failures with the blood of the brave, the blood of someone else, and with $10 billion of your tax money every single month.

Gimmicks? Gimmicks are what got us into Iraq in the first place. It certainly wasn't the ``war on terrorism.''

You can make all of the excuses that you want for continuing to embed our troops in a civil war, but a vote today for the Iraq Redeployment Act is a vote to end endless war. It is a vote for a fully funded, safe, and orderly redeployment that allows us to refocus on the war on terrorism, which is a threat to our families, rather than the civil war in Iraq, which is not.

It is not the enemy that has us pinned down in Iraq today; it is this Administration's unwillingness to admit its mistakes and its lies.

The intervention in Iraq was this country's largest foreign policy blunder. Now it is time for Congress to intervene. With this war in its fifth year, for Congress not to act now is for Congress to become an enabler and an accomplice to the Administration's errors.

Vice President Cheney rightly complains about the Iraqis proposing to take a two-month vacation. But what is really at fault here is Mr. Cheney and this Administration's four-year vacation from reality.

``Victory'' is improving our families' security. Pursuing policies contrary to that objective, committing the same error over and over again, that is defeatist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.

When parts of Texas endure an extreme drought, the burden is felt most heavily by our farm families. A devastating lack of water left many of our counties parched. Sam Berry, a rancher from Lavaca County wrote me to say: ``After back-to-back bad seasons and with all my reserve hay gone, how much worse could it get''?

Well, as bad as that drought was down in Texas, it is nothing like the drought of understanding for the plight of farmers and ranchers here in Washington. They have faced indifference on top of indifference.

Federal disaster assistance dried up. I received similar pleas from farmers and ranchers like David Wagner in Lavaca County and others from Bastrop County and Caldwell County and Fayette and Colorado counties. The last Congress, with $10 billion to burn every month in Iraq, had nothing to offer these ranchers here at home. When our new Congress finally passed emergency help this March, that help was vetoed by the President.

The bill that we pass today is another attempt to provide much-needed assistance to these farmers and ranchers.

I know that ranching looks mighty easy over in the Oval Office when some over there seem to think that clearing out brush in August is vacation work. But for those for whom ranching is not a hobby, who have found that their fields turned fallow; for those like Pat Peterson of Red Rock whom high-priced hay means selling their best livestock, disaster endangers a life and a livelihood.

This spring, Texas has had some relief. But who is to say this wet spring will last, and it is not enough to make up for the last two really bad seasons that our farmers and ranchers have endured. Helping our farmers and ranchers now cannot guarantee them success, but it will go a long way in helping restore what has been lost and protect what remains.

I hope the House tonight will approve this bill and that the President will finally get behind the relief that his fellow Texans need so very much.

Mr. Speaker, the President can veto our plan for a safe and orderly phased redeployment from Iraq, but he cannot veto reality. Our troops are coming home, it's just a question of how much blood and money will be spent before they do.

If the President had listened to the generals, we would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Each day of this unnecessary tragedy demonstrates the wisdom of General Schwarzkopf's warning that we would become ``like [a] dinosaur in a tar pit.''

Had he listened to the generals, the President would have deployed enough troops to get the job done. But instead, he rejected the advice of General Shinseki, and allowed the violence to spiral, and unguarded weapon heaps became IEDs.

If the President had listened to the generals, he would now be redeploying our troops instead of sending more, inadequately protected, for longer, repeat tours of duty.

Had the President listened to the generals, our veterans would be getting the quality care that they have earned and they deserve.

But in this Administration, generals who disagree with the President earn a new title: Retired.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our Republican colleagues are correct. This Congress spoke with one voice on the war on terrorism, and we continue to do so. Indeed, if President Bush had pursued the war on terrorism and the perpetrators of 9/11, instead of getting diverted to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, then when he hoisted that ``Mission Accomplished'' banner four years ago, it would have had meaning.

Instead, we have a burn rate of $10 billion every month in Iraq, $14 million every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week, every month of the year. More importantly, the real burn rate is in the loss of more than 3,300 American lives, brave men and women over there fighting for our country; 96 percent of those deaths, almost all of them, lost their life after President Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished.''

Today, the President can veto our attempt to secure a safe, orderly, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq, but he can't veto reality. Our troops are coming home. It's just a question of what price is paid in blood and money before that happens.

The President talks about listening to the commanders and the generals. I wonder if he was listening to General William Odom, the former National Security Agency Director, last Saturday when he said the President has let the Iraq war proceed on ``automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy cannot be rescued.''

If the President had listened to the generals, we would never have gone into Iraq in the first place. It was General Schwarzkopf who said, we would become ``like [a] dinosaur in a tar pit.''

If he had listened to the generals like General Shinseki, if he had insisted on going into Iraq, he would have sent enough troops to get the job done and not turned over all those weapons dumps to be converted into IEDs.

If he had listened to the generals, he would have provided our veterans with the health care that they have earned and deserved instead of subjecting them back here to the facilities and care they found in the United States.

The generals who disagree with this President earn a new title: Retired.