Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues for their leadership on this matter, and I am pleased to honor Congressman Kika de la Garza as he has honored south Texas and America by his extended public service.

This particular building is located around the corner from where Kika de la Garza began his career practicing law in McAllen and also around the corner from the district office that I have had the honor to maintain this past 2 years in the city of McAllen.

Kika began humbly and poorly, poor in economic terms but rich in talent. His first job was shining shoes, and he rose from that to making laws in the State House and later here in the United States Congress. But as far as he traveled and as important a position as he held here in Washington, he never stopped treating all of his constituents as if each one were the most important.

Kika still remembers an episode from his early days as a lawyer when he loaned one of his clients a shirt to keep warm in a cold courthouse. Throughout his tenure in Congress, Congressman de la Garza never forgot where he came from. It was my pleasure to share one term with him when I was first elected to my term that began in 1995.

At a time when many this year look at the Rio Grande Valley and talk about building walls, Congressman de la Garza believed in building bridges, literally and figuratively. He worked to improve relations and trade between the United States and Mexico throughout his career. He promoted dialogue between Members of Congress and our counterparts in Mexico. He led efforts to create modern border crossings across the Texas-Mexico border and bridges that are now vital links in commerce throughout this hemisphere.

His hard work earned him many honors here, many things named for him in the Rio Grande Valley, but also the Order of Aztec Eagle, the highest honor that the country of Mexico can bestow on a noncitizen.

Kika de la Garza is best known for his work here on agriculture, particularly his extended service as Chair of the House Agriculture Committee. He was the first Hispanic since 1917 to chair a standing committee in the United States House of Representatives; and no other chairman has ever done so much to advance the concerns of the small farmer, the family farmer, as Chairman de la Garza.

When you ask him of his proudest accomplishments, he points to the farm bills that he shepherded through this Congress. He particularly remembers his first farm bill as chairman. He gave a speech in this very room that won him a standing ovation, but it was his last-minute persuasion of a colleague from the other side of the aisle that passed the bill by a single vote. Chairman de la Garza knew for the farmer in the field results count far more than rhetoric.

Even though he has retired from this Congress, Kika de la Garza has not retired from public life. In fact, we still call him ``Mr. Chairman'' in the valley because he is the Democratic precinct chairman of Precinct 62 in McAllen. Although he has moved along in years, he has maintained the same interest in service that he always has had from his origin in the valley.

When you ask him about his most recent political office, he quotes back Tip O'Neill's famous axiom that ``all politics is local.'' From humble beginnings in the local community, Kika de

la Garza has returned home but maintains a legacy that is international in scope.

I want also to commend Lucille de la Garza, who clearly has been his partner and continues to be his partner. She served with him through the legislature, the Congress and now in McAllen. Kika and Lucille have devoted their lives together to enhance the quality of life for all citizens of the valley.

That devotion is also reflected in a great family. George is a cardiovascular surgeon who still practices in the valley. Michael is a retired Lieutenant Commander in the Navy who defended our country on the high seas from the Pacific to the Persian Gulf. Angela is a special education teacher at Tobias Elementary School in Kyle, working to pass along the world of opportunities that come with a strong public education.

Kika de la Garza is an example to all of us of a true gentleman and public servant who brought honor to this Congress through civility, respect and commitment to doing what is right. He will serve as an appropriate role model for the lawyers and public servants who enter into that courthouse, that Federal building named after him in McAllen, Texas.

His lifetime dedication to public service has been a gift to our community. Today's tribute is richly deserved, and I thank my colleagues for helping to secure the approval of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman greatly.

Mr. Speaker, like Humpty-Dumpty atop a great wall, the Republican leadership's false proposal that we consider today is really on the edge of a great fall.

This is not so much about broken immigration policies, as it is about a House leadership that is desperately trying to cling to power and realizing that it is about to take a great fall. A great fall because, in part, on immigration, as with so many other issues, it has had years to act, and years to respond. Like this Administration, it has failed to secure our borders or find a meaningful way to deal with immigration.

So today, as part of the campaign of fear and hate that it has promoted over the recess with hearings across America, this bill is designed to erect a fence along the entire border of Texas, including all of the area that I represent along the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico.

With no funding accompanying the bill, it is really less of a fortification than a fairy tale, and it is also results from public concerns on this issue that arise from the failure of the Administration to fund the 2,000 Border Patrol agents that we proposed in 2004 when it ended up providing only 210.

It is similar in concern to the raid that President Bush and his Administration made on our Texas Border Patrol agents, when it moved them to Arizona, in what even my Republican colleagues condemned as an ``outrage.'' They cannot put Humpty-Dumpty together again because reality does not comport with their rhetoric.

The solution to our problems with immigration will take more than concrete. You cannot build a wall high enough or long enough. You cannot pour in the billions and billions of dollars that they propose over the next decade for this wall, if it were ever funded, to keep people who are hungry from coming to this country.

What we need is a comprehensive approach that includes securing our borders, but at the same time realizes that much of our American industry and agriculture depends on immigrant labor. We need a way to encourage that labor to enter the country in a legal, not illegal fashion. If you do nothing but erect a false barrier and fail to include at the same time a legal way for labor to enter this country to seek a better life and to help us have a better life, one is left with a tremendous false sense of security for a wall that didn't work in Berlin, didn't work around Hong Kong, and hasn't worked in many other areas and is not the kind of comprehensive solution we need.

History and Humpty-Dumpty teach us that great walls are not the answer. What we need today is not a facade like that which is being proposed, we need leadership and real action.

Any high school student who has completed, even at the C level, a civics course at Johnson High School or Crockett or Bowie High School in Austin, Texas, knows that when the House passes one bill and the Senate passes another bill, both Republican bodies, with the President seeming to timidly favor the Senate bill, that the solution isn't to go around and have a round of show hearings and piecemeal a measure. One must cause the two bodies to come together and try to achieve a reasonable consensus.

Instead, House Republicans have done everything that they possibly can to stymie consensus and stymie a comprehensive solution. Instead, they bring us the false hope of a giant and costly wall that will not solve this problem. We need the President and a Congress who support real security and who are willing to stake some of their future on that, not some kind of barbed-wire smokescreen.

The citizens I represent who live on the southern edge of the country live in the very area that this wall would be built. Those who I represent that live hundreds of miles away are recognizing that we shouldn't be punished by posturing politicians high on the prospects of stirring up fear thousands of miles away with people who have never been to our Texas border.

Rather our entire country, all of our families, will be safer if we have a plan for enhancing border security enforcement, as well as for overhauling our immigration system. One of the biggest wrongs committed in this round of hearings, this dog and pony show that House Republicans have taken around the country, is to make an attempt to confuse the violence associated with drug cartels along our border with immigrants coming here seeking a better future, the same kinds of immigrants that came here in previous centuries looking for a better life in America. The two are separate, except to the extent that enforcement policy only drives some seeking a better life to some of the gangs that are also responsible for drug violence.

Similarly, the attempt to confuse our people and make them think that Osama bin Laden is headed north in a sombrero and that we face a great invasion of terrorists across the Rio Grande is also appealing to fear and the unknown rather than appealing to the reality of how we secure our borders.

Many Americans have a legitimate concern for securing our borders. In some areas, it may be that limited use of walls and certainly much broader use of our Border Patrol will provide part of that solution. But without the comprehensive approach that we so desperately need, we will not have solved the problem of immigration, of its contribution to our economy, and of the concerns it raises for some of our border communities.

I salute the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership on this matter, and I believe that next year, when we have a more responsive Congress that cares about placing a priority on the real problems that affect American families, we may be able to finally move toward a comprehensive immigration approach, and not just a series of campaign speeches by people who want to distort and who want to shift the focus of debate from the failures that they have been responsible for these many years in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, during the 12 years that Republicans have controlled this House, they have done very little to address the real concerns of families confronted with a health care crisis. This afternoon during rush hour, some family, in fact probably many families, will suffer a severe auto accident on the way home.

Perhaps a mom will be found to have breast cancer, or a child a serious childhood disease. And as these health care challenges emerge, tens of thousands of families across America will end up not only driven into despair but into bankruptcy.

And yet Republicans have not offered real solutions to address those kinds of problems. Recognizing their failures earlier this year, both Senate and House Republican leaders declared there would be a ``health care week.'' Well, the Senate took up their ``health care week,'' and every old, retread Republican proposal that they had was rejected.

So I guess too embarrassed to have ``health care week'' here in the House, even though they declared it, the Republicans canceled ``health care week,'' just like they have canceled so many of the commitments that they made back in 1994 to the American people.

And what they have left as their one new idea for the crisis that American families face in health care is this pitiful proposal. They have discovered that the answer to the problems American families face with health care is not what the American families thought was their problem about getting access to affordable, quality health care. No, it is bad handwriting. Yes. We all know the legendary bad handwriting of physicians that is the subject of cartoons and stories.

But by golly, they are solving that. All of these physicians, and the hospitals and the clinics, will be using electronic records and solve that penmanship problem. Well, that is not a bad idea. It is just that they do not put their money where their mouth is.

They tell the physicians and the clinics, you figure out how to pay for this technology. And in the process of this transformation, once again, as they have done with our library records and our phone records and our veterans records, they couldn't really care less about privacy.

Think about whether you want your psychiatric records, your prescription records on the Internet for other people to see. Because this legislation does not provide the guarantee of privacy. And so fearful are they of a true debate about protecting the privacy rights of Americans to their medical records, to their health care records, that may affect their future employment, that may affect their future family relations, that may affect their ability to get insurance.

So fearful are they of a debate about that, they refuse to let us offer even one amendment to address patient privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important motion for a modest bill. It leaves this bill with an opportunity to move forward today with just one important change, and that is the addition of vital personal privacy protection of what should be genuinely personal medical records.

In my youth, there was a popular song called ``I Heard it Through the Grapevine.'' These days, it's ``I saw it on the Internet.'' In this busy world of busy bodies and identity theft and commercial snooping, I believe what a patient confides to a physician about an ailment, what a young couple tells a psychologist about their marriage, what prescription a pharmacist provides, that highly personal information should not be spread and read on the Internet.

The consequences of unwanted disclosure of personal health information is more than embarrassment or humiliation. It may mean the loss of a job or a promotion. It may mean that an individual refuses to confide necessary information to their doctor or avoids health care and critical medical tests because of fear that the information will be disclosed without her consent.

This Administration has shown little interest in personal privacy, whether it was the privacy of library records or phone conversations or veterans' records.

The Federal Government scored a D-plus on the 2005 Computer Security Report Card, with the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security scoring an F. And the Administration's record on health care privacy is even worse. As the Post disclosed last month, there have been 19,420 complaints during the Bush Administration about privacy violations. There have, during this Administration, been almost 20,000 complaints about invasions of privacy with medical records, and all of that has not resulted in a single civil fine anywhere in this country under the protections that are available there, and only two criminal cases out of that 20,000.

This is not an adequate performance, and that is why Dr. Deborah Peel, one of my Texas neighbors, and a host of professional and public health organizations have urged us to adopt meaningful privacy protections in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who has been such an advocate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has led the way on privacy issues across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by responding to Mr. Shaw's comments. None of the modest steps he cited respond to the fact that we have an $800 billion trade deficit and an Administration with a trade policy that will do nothing but make it worse.

This agreement with a small but strategically important country like Oman ought to have been approved today unanimously, and it could have been. But there is a very big problem, and that problem is not in Oman on the other side of the world; it is on Pennsylvania, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to be more precise.

The problem is that just as this Administration has shown consistent disdain for the rights and needs of workers in America, just as it has shown consistent disdain for environmental protection--ready to manipulate science whenever it needs to for political purposes to justify degradation of our air, our water, and our other environmental resources--today it shows continued disdain for the environment and for workers in our international trade agreements.

What we need is a modern, bipartisan trade policy that recognizes that you cannot measure how good your trade policy is based solely on how many dollars in goods transverse international borders. You have to consider the impact of that trade on the workers that produce the goods and on the environment that surrounds them.

During the consideration of this bill in the Ways and Means Committee, we offered very modest amendments to try to address these concerns. On upholding international labor standards and on an amendment that I offered to prevent trade in endangered species, the Committee and the Administration would have none of it because if they showed basic dignity and respect for workers and the environment with

Oman, a small country, they might have to do it everywhere, maybe even here in America. You can tell the level of the Administration commitment by the level of enforcement remedies that they provide for the environment and for workers. Then enforcement mechanism in this agreement amounts to less than giving only a traffic ticket to the repeat offender of the most egregious abuse. You pay a fine to yourself--that is the great remedy that they offer.

So today they must, as has been done so often on so many issues, raise the specter of 9/11 and the war on terrorism. How many times has that threat been misused in this building and down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue to debase the most basic and fundamental values that make this a unique country?

It is pulled out again today. It is an issue here, as the Gentleman from Maryland has indicated, because they plan to transfer the issue of port security from this body to an unaccountable, international tribunal that will be empowered to decide whether or not we can restrict foreign acquisition of American ports.

This Administration stood by and encouraged a sellout of our port security once before, and under this agreement they can transfer all responsibility to an unaccountable international tribunal.

Because this agreement fails to adequately respect the needs of American workers and the needs of the environment around the world, it ought to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, while young Americans die abroad in the name of democracy, some in this Congress scheme to undermine democracy at home by not renewing key provisions in the Voting Rights Act. They even seek a voter literacy test.

Blind to abuses here, one Congressman recently declared that ``I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore.'' This shows not only insensitivity and indifference, it shows why we need to renew completely, without weakening amendments, the Voting Rights Act.

President Lyndon B. Johnson had the will and the courage to secure passage of this fundamental guarantee even though he understood the price that he and the Democratic Party would pay. Now it is not only the law but the Administration's will to enforce that law that is at stake. Overruling professionals at the U.S. Department of Justice, political appointees disregarded obvious Voting Rights Act violations in both the DeLay gerrymandering of Texas and the Georgia voter identification law. The professional employees were vindicated by the courts, but a third of the lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division have left.

Renewing democracy abroad begins with renewing democracy at home.

The Washington Post published a series of articles that document the politicization of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration: November 27, 2005, December 2, 2005, December 10, 2005, and January 23, 2006.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2005]

Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

(By Dan Eggen)

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark

Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep.

Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a

previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post.

But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two

analysts in the department's voting section, said the

redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic

voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the

plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities

had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence

in elections.

``The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that

the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a

discriminatory effect,'' the memo concluded. The memo also

found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who

helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of

being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.

But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway

because it would maximize the number of Republican federal

lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was

approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in

the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control

of Congress.

J. Gerald ``Gerry'' Hebert, one of the lawyers representing

Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in

court, said of the Justice Department's action: ``We always

felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was.

. . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed

bag or anything like that. This should have been a very

clear-cut case.''

But Justice Department spokesman Eric W. Holland said the

decision to approve the Texas plan was vindicated by a three-

judge panel that rejected the Democratic challenge. The case

is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

``The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan

created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given

the demographics of the state and the requirements of the

law,'' Holland said. He added that Texas now has three

African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the

redistricting.

Texas Republicans also have maintained that the plan did

not dilute minority votes and that the number of

congressional districts with a majority of racial minorities

remained unchanged at 11. The total number of congressional

districts, however, grew from 30 to 32.

The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under

tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case

were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided

to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical

of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos,

while not binding, historically carry great weight within the

Justice Department.

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states

with a history of discriminatory elections are required to

submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for

approval by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

The Texas case provides another example of conflict between

political appointees and many of the division's career

employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month

that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a

controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was

later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.

Mark Posner, a longtime Justice Department lawyer who now

teaches law at American University, said it was ``highly

unusual'' for political appointees to overrule a unanimous

finding such as the one in the Texas case.

``In this kind of situation, where everybody agrees at

least on the staff level . . . that is a very, very strong

case,'' Posner said. ``The fact that everybody agreed that

there were reductions in minority voting strength, and that

they were significant, raises a lot of questions as to why it

was'' approved, he said.

The Texas memo also provides new insight into the highly

politicized environment surrounding that state's

redistricting fight, which prompted Democratic state

lawmakers to flee the state in hopes of derailing the plan.

DeLay and his allies participated intensively as they pushed

to redraw Texas's congressional boundaries and strengthen GOP

control of the U.S. House.

DeLay, the former House majority leader, is fighting state

felony counts of money laundering and conspiracy--crimes he

is charged with committing by unlawfully injecting corporate

money into state elections. His campaign efforts were made in

preparation for the new congressional map that was the focus

of the Justice Department memo.

One of two DeLay aides also under indictment in the case,

James W. Ellis, is cited in the Justice Department memo as

pushing for the plan despite the risk that it would not

receive ``preclearance,'' or approval, from the department.

Ellis and other DeLay aides successfully forced the adoption

of their plan over two other versions passed by Texas

legislators that would not have raised as many concerns about

voting rights discrimination, the memo said.

``We need our map, which has been researched and vetted for

months,'' Ellis wrote in an October 2003 document, according

to the Justice Department memo. ``The pre-clearance and

political risks are the delegation's and we are willing to

assume those risks, but only with our map.''

Hebert said the Justice Department's approval of the

redistricting plan, signed by Sheldon T. Bradshaw, principal

deputy assistant attorney general, was valuable to Texas

officials when they defended it in court. He called the

internal Justice Department memo, which did not come out

during

the court case, ``yet another indictment of Tom DeLay,

because this memo shows conclusively that the map he produced

violated the law.''

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden called Hebert's

characterization ``nonsensical political babble'' and echoed

the Justice Department in pointing to court rulings that have

found no discriminatory impact on minority voters.

``Fair and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of the

map's merits that also refute any notion that the plan is

unfair or doesn't meet legal standards,'' Madden said.

``Ultimately the court will decide whether the criticisms

have any weight or validity.''

Testimony in the civil lawsuit demonstrated that DeLay and

Ellis insisted on last-minute changes during the Texas

legislature's final deliberations. Ellis said DeLay traveled

to Texas to attend many of the meetings that produced the

final map, and Ellis himself worked through the state's

lieutenant governor and a state senator to shape the

outcome.

In their analysis, the Justice Department lawyers

emphasized that the last-minute changes--made in a

legislative conference committee, out of public view--

fundamentally altered legally acceptable redistricting

proposals approved separately by the Texas House and Senate.

``It was not necessary'' for these plans to be altered,

except to advance partisan political goals, the department

lawyers concluded.

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General

Greg Abbott, said he did not have any immediate comment.

The Justice Department memo recommending rejection of the

Texas plan was written by two analysts and five lawyers. In

addition, the head of the voting section at the time, Joseph

Rich, wrote a concurring opinion. Rich has since left the

department and declined to comment on the memo yesterday.

The complexity of the arguments surrounding the Voting

Rights Act is evident in the Justice Department memo, which

focused particular attention on seats held in 2003 by a white

Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry

Bonilla.

Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from

minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little

support from Hispanics. The question to be considered by

Justice Department lawyers was whether the new map was

``retrogressive,'' because it diluted the power of minority

voters to elect their candidate of choice. Under the adopted

Texas plan, Frost's congressional district was dismantled,

while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district

dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic

voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.

``This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in

minority voting strength,'' Rich wrote in his concurring

opinion. ``The state's argument that it has increased

minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under

careful analysis.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, over the last year, I have mentioned to Chairman Wolf on a number of occasions that I think of him every time that it rains. With the torrential downpours that we have had here in the Northeast over the last several days, I have been thinking of him even more, and thanking him, thanking him sincerely as well as thanking Ranking Member Mollohan and their respective staffs for responding to the great potential for preventable flooding disaster in the part of the country that I represent along our southern border in Texas.

I very much appreciate the subcommittee including $6.4 million in this bill for improvements to the levees along the Rio Grande River. This means that construction can begin for vital protection for the cities of McAllen, Hidalgo, Pharr and Granjeno.

Thank you for reassuring the families in these communities that, despite both the very tough competition for Federal dollars and our inability to get the Administration to really place a priority on flood protection, that you heard and answered their plea for help. This is a significant increase in support that will help ensure that, in the event we have a hurricane or even a very strong tropical storm, that thousands of families will not find their homes flooded, their businesses closed, their drinking water polluted and relief efforts hampered as both the local airport and highways are inundated.

In the spring of last year, as I first began representing the Rio Grande Valley, I made what was, until recently, the only request for more levee rehabilitation dollars. I appreciate the 39 local governments, school districts and economic development corporations that endorsed this call for life-saving Federal investment.

While today's bill nearly triples the Administration request for levees, I know the subcommittee is fully aware that much more is needed every year for the next decade to ensure rehabilitation for these levees, which are up to 9 feet short, geologically flawed, structurally unsound and could be overtopped along 38 river miles.

The millions that we invest today are the beginning of a vital investment that, when repeated in future years, will save us billions in flood relief and untold human misery.

But for the fate of nature, the hurricane that hit New Orleans could just as easily have tracked west instead of tracking east and caused a similar disaster in Texas. Until the entire rehabilitation program of the International Boundary and Water Commission is completed, at a total cost that is a mere fraction of what Congress has already approved for New Orleans, we remain at very great risk.

Now the Valley looks to our Texas Senators and to the Administration to fully support what this subcommittee has done and to add funds to what is being approved here in this bill so that together we can ensure a reasonable level of safety and avoid another Katrina-style disaster.

For the wealthiest few, Republicans don't just aim to eliminate the misnamed ``death tax,'' they want the death of all taxes.

They have got some exit strategy, not for our troops sacrificing their all and facing death in Iraq, it is an exit strategy for billionaires from the tax burden that they should share to support our Nation.

For whom do they spell relief today?

Minimum wage? Won't raise it.

Gas prices? Won't cut them.

Drug prices? Won't lower them.

Veterans' health care? Can't cover them.

Student loans, Medicare, Medicaid? Cut, cut, cut.

This is truly a ``cut-and-run'' Congress: cutting relief for most Americans while running up a huge deficit to finance more billionaire tax breaks.

Will you benefit from these new tax breaks today? Take this quiz:

Do you play Yahtzee or maintain a fleet of yachts?

Do you wear a hard hat or a silk top hat?

Do you drive a pick-up or own a gallery of Picassos?

Do you pump gas by the gallon or sell it by the barrel?

Only if the answer is the latter for all of these questions are you likely to be among the handful of Americans who benefits from not having to pay a tax that Teddy Roosevelt, back when there were a few Teddy Roosevelt Republicans, called a key to not having us copy the landed aristocracy of the European continent.

This bill today goes beyond fiscal irresponsibility, it is true fiscal insanity, piling burden upon burden on our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Thomas is correct that it is a ``compromise,'' but only in the sense that it compromises our families and our Nation's future and strength.

Mr. Speaker, increasingly Americans are realizing there is a better way to support our troops than just sending more of them off to be killed. Would that more here in Washington had a little of our troops' courage to stand up to the myth-based policies of this Administration.

The good judgment of a strong majority of House Democrats, including the consistent position of our minority leader in opposing President Bush's original invasion of Iraq, was demonstrated again yesterday by a report from over 100 top foreign policy experts across the ideological spectrum.

Eighty-seven percent of them said that the war in Iraq has a negative impact on protecting the American people, that it is undermining the war on terrorism. But ignoring their advice, ignoring one retired general after another, and ignoring the good sense of ordinary Americans across this country, the Administration has consistently pursued a policy that endangers our families' security.

The price of the Administration's deaf ear, $229 million per day, and a price paid in the blood of others every day.

Mr. Speaker, this war was launched without an imminent threat to our families. It endangers them more every day, creating new generations of terrorists. Radical ``know it all'' ideologues here in Washington bent facts, distorted intelligence, and perpetrated lies designed to mislead the American people into believing that a third rate thug had a hand in the 9/11 tragedy and was soon to unleash a mushroom cloud.

From the start, House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this war. But radical ideologues rushed headlong anyway, ignoring professional military advice about the number of troops and equipment needed. One general after another has indicted this Administration for its misjudgment and mismanagement.

But now, almost 3,000 Americans lie dead, with about another 20,000 seriously injured. Every day, every single day, American taxpayers are forced to spend $229 million in Iraq, and they pay again every time they go to the gas pump. All that is in sight is an endless, civil war quagmire.

Today's resolution pins these Administration failures on the coattails of our courageous servicemen and women. Administration ineptness is falsely attached to a resolution honoring our troops.

Americans are increasingly realizing there is a better way to honor our troops than by sending more of them off to be killed. Would that there were more than a little of our troops' courage right here in Washington from those, who refuse to challenge this Administration's arrogant, myth-based policies and who choose instead to cut and run from their responsibilities.

Instead of staying the course, we need to chart a smarter course. It is not weakness or retreat to recognize the Administration offers us only an endless ``spend and bleed'' policy.

When this talkathon ends, reject this fraudulent resolution, which cannot be amended or changed, to alter this Administration's deadly pursuit of a desert mirage. Neither paper resolutions, nor more Administration arrogance will defeat terrorism.

The harm from this Administration's disastrous decision to invade Iraq was apparent from the beginning. The warnings of many, as noted in my speeches, including those given on the floor on September 22, 2002 (H6410), October 9, 2002 (H7328), and October 10, 2002 (H7772), and the contemporaneous editorial below, went unheeded.

[From the Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 13, 2002]

Our Voices Must Work to Avert An Invasion

(By Rep. Lloyd Doggett, U.S. House of Representatives)

I recently voted against what is really an authorization

for launching a massive land invasion and military occupation

of Iraq. More important than speaking with one voice, the

votes of 133 Congress members against this rush to war

underscored the importance of our continuing to speak as one

democracy.

I sought to give voice to the thousands of Central Texans

who communicated their concerns about making the terrible

weapon of war a predominant instrument in our foreign policy.

With this grave decision on war and peace though, I knew I

would have to answer to more than those I am privileged to

represent--I would have to answer to myself, my children and

to history.

War now would only increase the danger to American

families. The house-to-house urban combat that would likely

result from a land invasion in Iraq would kill thousands,

divert precious resources from our ongoing war on terrorism

and expose our families to more terrorism from among the many

who would perceive this as a crusade against Islam. From the

information provided to Congress, I do have some insight into

issues about which so many are understandably uncertain and

fearful. No evidence has been shared to connect Iraq to the

Sept. 11 tragedy, nor to show that Iraq now poses an imminent

threat to American families.

As former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said,

``Saddam Hussein is probably on Osama bin Laden's hit list.''

From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until last

week, we know that the unfinished job of overcoming al Qaida

represents the real threat. The CIA concluded that invading

Iraq is more likely to drive our now separate enemies

together against us and certainly more likely to make Saddam

Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that he may

possess.

In addition to the cost in lives, the costs of war, to

differing degrees, will touch us all. President Bush's top

economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated that the cost

of waging this war may rise as high as $200 billion. At a

time of chronic deficit spending,

these are precious resources no longer available for

education, health care, retirement security and homeland

security.

True security is more than a military second to none and

effective law enforcement at home; it means working with

nations to address our common security concerns. We are

strong enough to defeat Iraq in combat, but we must be wise

enough to rely on America's other strengths to rid the world

of Saddam Hussein's danger.

No fool would trust Saddam Hussein with even one American

life. Our choice is not between ``war'' and ``doing nothing''

or between ``war'' and ``appeasement.'' The prudent choice

remains--first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through

effective, comprehensive, international inspections.

Some of the most insightful arguments against invading Iraq

were advanced by Republicans and military leaders. The first

President Bush, in 1998, wrote: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam,

extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . .

would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. .

. . [We] could conceivably still be an occupying power in a

bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically

different--and perhaps barren--outcome.''

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was even more direct: ``I am

certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been

like the dinosaur in the tar pit.''

Apparently, Iraq represents only the first step in

implementing the administration's recently announced ``first-

strike'' defense strategy. Over-reliance on packing the

biggest gun and having the fastest draw will not make us

safer. Rather, it is a formula for international anarchy. A

quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at

the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for

international law and order, and, ultimately, endangering all

of us.

President Reagan used containment effectively against

another ``evil empire,'' the Soviet Union, and from Cuba to

Libya, a succession of presidents has avoided nuclear

Armageddon. Containment and disarmament may not end all wars,

but they are clearly superior to the new ``first-strike

formula'' that risks wars without end.

With the prospect of war overshadowing all of our hopes and

dreams for this country and the world, we must continue to

thoughtfully and respectfully voice our opposition in hopes

that invasion may yet be averted.

Mr. Speaker, America deserves a real choice about our future in Iraq. But, instead, tomorrow it is presented with a false choice. Indeed, not so much a debate about our future in Iraq as a 10- hour or so talk-a-thon. The talk-a-thon is about a resolution that, much like the Iraq policy we have seen over the last few years, is presented to this House without the ability of any Member of the House to change a single word. You cannot dot an ``i.'' You cannot cross a ``t.'' You cannot offer an amendment. You cannot offer a substitute or alternative policy. Once again, in a very constrained and perverse way, the question of Iraq is presented for Members to talk, but not to act.

Indeed, the resolution itself tells the whole story. It is entitled a resolution which is ``declaring that the United States will prevail in the `Global War on Terror.' '' Wouldn't it be wonderful if by simply passing a declaration we could declare the ``Global War on Terror'' won?

But tragically it is paper like this that was offered by those who failed to fulfill their decision-making and oversight responsibilities in this Congress that exposed young men and women from this country to the greatest danger. Instead of Kevlar vests, instead of reinforced vehicles, they got paper resolutions. And paper resolutions could not block the IEDs, and it could not block the bullets that came the way of our brave young men and women in uniform. No. Indeed, other than paper proclamations, the original claim was the main thing our troops would need in Iraq, as they were being sent off to war, was a broom to sweep away all the rose petals that would be thrown at them in gratitude for them invading Iraq. Well, of course, it did not turn out that way.

This false choice that we are being presented with tomorrow without any opportunity to dot an ``i'' or cross a ``t'' deserves some consideration. It has a ``Whereas'' clause that ``by early 2003, Saddam Hussein . . . had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace.''. The reason that language is there is to perpetuate the lie, and it is a lie, that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the tragedy of 9/11.

Now, we know that Saddam Hussein was a villain, a thug, a dictator, and a tyrant. But there has been absolutely no evidence presented to this Congress to support the continued innuendo and suggestion by this administration, time and time again, that he somehow was responsible for 9/11.

Then there is a clause in the resolution that ``the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in the war against all who oppose their ideology. Well, the truth is it became a central front only after President George Bush started a war there. He provided the terrorists with the opportunity; he took our young men and women to them, placed them in grave danger, provided an inadequate number of troops so that all these Iraqi ammunition and weapons dumps were open and

available to any terrorist who wanted to come in and take their weapons to use against our American forces.

The resolution refers to our ``coalition,'' and, of course, our ``coalition'' is the United States, the United Kingdom, and a great deal of public relations. Because most of the other countries in the so-called ``coalition'' have contributed extremely meager resources. They have been there for public relations purposes to try to cover the fact that this was a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.

And now the ``impressive victories'' of which this resolution speaks do not take into account that the number of deaths of young Americans is approaching 3,000; 3,000 human beings, 3,000 young people cut down in their lives, removed from their families. We approach another 20,000 who suffered grievous injury, who may never be quite the same because of the injuries that they suffered in courageous service to our country.

And that takes us to why this resolution is being presented in this form. Because from the outset this administration and the leadership in this Congress have never missed a chance to hitch a ride for their failed policies on the coattails of the courageous men and women who have been standing up for our country overseas.

They know their failed policies can't stand on their own merit, and so they buried them within a resolution honoring the sacrifice of our United States troops. I honor them, but say that our policy must change and must change now.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, only a few months ago, the Department of State reported on the type of Egypt that would receive more American tax dollars under this bill: ``The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas.'' ``Security forces killed a number of opposition voters and protestors.'' ``A systematic pattern of torture by the security forces existed.'' ``At least seven persons died in custody at police stations or prisons'' during 2005. This on top of 120 such deaths in police custody ``as a direct result of torture'' over the prior decade ``among some 420 cases of torture.''

I think Secretary of State Rice was absolutely correct to speak out on democracy in Egypt earlier this year, and she was also correct when she said previously ``that for 60 years, it has been the policy of the United States and our allies to turn a blind eye to the absence of freedom in the Middle East.'' The only problem is that the commitment of this Administration to democracy promotion is largely determined by its desperate attempt to find more excuses for its other foreign policy failures. And when it comes to Egypt, the Bush administration has merely changed that ``blind eye'' to a wink.

Yes, just after President Mubarak last month extended emergency rule and dictatorial powers for himself, just after he locked up his electoral opponent, and just as his henchmen were beating peacefully assembled people brutally on the streets of Cairo, Vice President Cheney winked and accorded Mubarak, Jr. the prestige of a White House meeting. And the Administration advises that President Bush dropped in to say hello to Mubarak, Jr., but briefly because he only wanted to convey his best wishes to Mubarak, Sr.

Well, the Mubarak strategy deserves more than that kind of wink and a nod toward democracy. His strategy has been, from the very beginning, to convince American leaders and American taxpayers to transfer their tax dollars to Egypt because he represents the only alternative to Islamic extremists. And to ensure that his strategy continues to pay dividends, he aggressively suppresses any moderate opposition that emerges.

It is true that he doesn't boil his opponents alive like Secretary Rumsfeld's former buddy in Uzbekistan. But to follow the sad path of civic discourse in Egypt is to watch an authoritarian respond to his people's demand for a more open society with a big stick, with a view that he can beat that spirit out of them with fear and intimidation.

What we need in Egypt, as several people have said on both sides of this debate, what we need is a pragmatic policy, a policy that realizes if we continue to associate ourselves with a corrupt regime, eventually the pressure cooker will explode, and we will have paid to create the very disaster that these dollars are allegedly designed to avoid.

Now is the time to tell President Mubarak, through this amendment, that we have wasted more than enough money propping up tyranny. Ultimately, by approving the Obey-Lantos-Hyde-Green bipartisan amendment, this Congress can say to this latter-day pharoah, ``let your Egyptian people go.'' Doing that is the best way not only to help the people of Egypt, but also to help American families be safer.

Some have asked about the headline that will likely run about this debate. I will tell you what the headline will be if this amendment is not approved. The headline will be: ``We got away with it again.'' Clearly, the Egyptian government has not heard the comments given quietly in private during the past. They have paid more attention to the winks they have gotten from this Administration. The only thing they will understand is in dollars and cents and in the votes that are cast for this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment because it will

not only protect American tax dollars, it will lead to more safety for American families.

Mr. Chairman, a massive experiment on poor people in Texas has been a true disaster. Mr. Baca seeks to ensure that all Americans are protected from the same thing happening to them.

Apparently, there were some people, who thought that Accenture could do just as good a job in responding to food stamp inquiries as it did dodging its fair share of taxes by moving off to Bermuda. They were wrong.

Even our Republican comptroller, as Mr. Baca has noted, says we have had a storm, ``a perfect storm of wasted tax dollars.'' Many members of our Texas delegation this very week have written to the Governor saying that we believe ``assisting families with nutrition and health care is not an expense, it is an investment in our community,'' and noting that face-to-face assistance by our public employees cannot be substituted by a machine, with turning poor people over to the Internet or a phone call in a distant city instead of a human being.

Moreover, our Texas State locations have ``well-trained eligibility employees.'' Those are the employees that our

Texas Governor proposed to dismiss. We need to keep them there, and this amendment would help accomplish that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Carmen Anaya was a remarkable human being. Her life of 79 years both inspires and teaches us. Born in Monterrey, Mexico; a teacher, she moved to the United States as a young woman and married Jose Anaya.

For the next 20 years as their family grew, they worked as migrant farm workers all across America--harvesting cherries in Michigan, tomatoes in California, potatoes in Oregon, and sugar beets in the Dakotas. Eventually they opened a small general store in Las Milpas in the Texas Rio Grande Valley.

In Spanish, a ``milpa'' is a temporary field that is cultivated for a few seasons. But the colonia of Las Milpas was

the permanent home of thousands who lacked running water, had no paved roads and no jobs that offered a way to escape poverty. Even worse, most residents had little hope for a better future for themselves or for their children.

In 1982, Mrs. Anaya joined with other people of faith to found Valley Interfaith, a nonprofit coalition of over 40 churches that, with the work of lead organizer Elizabeth Valdez, has now expanded to represent some 60,000 Valley families. Valley Interfaith leaders already knew how to cultivate fields, but together they learned how to cultivate hope and justice. For more than two decades, they have put their faith into action to help the impoverished help themselves and to hold elected officials accountable at all levels of government.

With the very active and the very vocal participation of Mrs. Anaya, Valley Interfaith brought clean drinking water to over 160,000 residents of colonias like Las Milpas; secured living wage ordinances and raised the salaries of thousands; and, with a new job training program, have found jobs for another 1,500.

Above all, through her work with Valley Interfaith, Mrs. Anaya inspired her neighbors to believe in themselves, in their communities, and in their ability to bring about change. Those once isolated and frustrated are now an organized voice with the ability to demand justice.

Last Monday, I visited with the Anaya family at their home in Las Milpas shortly after the celebration of a funeral mass in the Parish of Santa Cabrini at which Ernesto Cortez, Jr., who continues to provide the leadership for a network of groups like Valley Interfaith, spoke of her leadership and tenacity in a eulogy. Mrs. Anaya loved her church at which she attended choir practice twice a week. At the rosary, Ofelia de los Santos, a friend through whom I got to know Mrs. Anaya, spoke of her involvement of her church in the quest for social justice.

St. Frances or Santa Cabrini, as she is known in the Valley, is a saint who is the patroness of immigrants. And it was Carmen Anaya, an immigrant to our Nation, who spread the gospel through her words and deeds. Her example is particularly significant in the course of the ongoing national debate about immigration. Because two farm workers came across the Rio Grande to do hot, hard, demanding work, America has gained not only from their labors but from their six children:

Jose, Jr., who operated the family store, now works for the city of Pharr.

Diana and Consuelo each provide leadership for our country's future as public school principals.

Minerva, or Minnie, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, is now a homebuilder with her husband, retired Green Beret colonel, Chris St. John.

Eduardo, Eddie, an attorney and certified public accountant, has the only law office in Las Milpas.

Linda, a nurse, is an administrator at Cornerstone Regional Hospital.

The life of service of any one child would be enough to make a parent proud. But think how much our country gains and continues to gain from the service of each of these six children. Her life and her children say more about family values than a thousand speeches from the floor of this Congress. And in the ongoing national debate about immigration, we should reflect on her legacy. Mexican immigrants like Carmen and Jose Anaya have offered much to their adopted land. America is the stronger for their presence.

Mr. Speaker, some folks really do get all of the breaks, and I am not talking about winning the lottery. The lobbyists are winning. The

very wealthiest few in this country continue to hit the jackpot with their Republican friends controlling Washington.

The tax breaks in this bill will ensure that the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor in America continues growing.

And our deficit will keep growing, also, imposing a greater and greater burden on our children and on our grandchildren.

The Republicans say that further tax breaks are a necessity, and I guess they are right. With gas prices skyrocketing, the occupation of Iraq showing no end and poll numbers nosediving, more tax breaks for the wealthiest few are what Republican supporters view as a political necessity.

They are right. It is a jobs bill. It is their jobs that it is a bill about. They will pay any price with your children and grandchildren's tax dollars to cling to power up here.

The administration can't capture Osama Bin Laden. It can't meet the prescription needs of our seniors. It can't agree on what to do about immigrants. About the only issue around on which they can reach any agreement is more tax breaks for the privileged few.

Yes, President Clinton did sign an end to welfare as we know it, but corporate welfare has never had a better friend than this Republican caucus. Never mind that they have to borrow money from all to give tax breaks to a few. Never mind that this is the first time in recorded history that a country has embarked on a war by saying to some people, you must die for your country, and to others, you must stuff your pocket with more tax breaks. Some shared sacrifice.

A ``no'' vote today is a vote for fiscal responsibility. It is a vote for long-term stability over short-term gimmicks. A ``no'' vote is a step forward in freeing our children from the burdens of today's Republican excesses.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, corruption is rampant in Washington, and we are now in the fifth month of this congressional session. About the only action these Republicans have taken is to enact a harsh punishment. Yes, they have enacted a punishment on all of the fat cats. They have said that lawmakers-turned-lobbyists can no longer use the House gym. Apparently, the thinking here is that fat cats will no longer be entitled to skinny lobbyists.

Where the real sweating has actually taken place in these five months, where the real heavy lifting has occurred, is by Republicans who have been in a continual workout to create the impression they were doing something while actually changing nothing about the way this House operates. It was as if the idea was to have a press conference and give a few speeches and not expect anything to happen because that press conference announcing their legislation was the high-water mark. After that, as to each provision of the bill it was the weak getting weaker at every stage of this process.

How do you measure the cost of corruption to the American people that is occurring here? The cost is reflected in the experience that our seniors (and those who are helping them) are having right now with the prescription drug bill written for pharmaceutical manufacturers instead of the people that needed the help. The cost is reflected in the no-bid contracts, whether in Iraq or in response to Hurricane Katrina, and the price that the jobless, the homeless, and the hopeless are paying for the corruption of this Administration. The cost of a failed energy policy is reflected in the price we pay at the pump every time we fill up. That is the cost of corruption.

The bill before us today is not designed to curb the cost of corruption, just to deflect criticism from Republicans for doing nothing about it. The culture of corruption will not end in this city and in this country with one Member's conviction or resignation, and it certainly will not end when the Republican leadership is here today simply resigned to business as usual.