Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, what incredible nonsense we have heard here on the floor of the House this afternoon, this attempt to raise the flag and besmirch Members of this House over their stance on the American flag practically on the eve of Flag Day.

Let me tell the gentleman (Mr. Kingston), there are two kinds of people today that have the American flag wrapped around them. Some of them are young men and women who come back in coffins with the flag draped around it, who gave their all in the ultimate sacrifice for this country; and all of us honor them, whatever our views about the President's policy. But the other kind of people we do not honor, and it is those who choose to wrap their own bad policies that they cannot defend by stretching the flag around themselves.

What are the merits of the argument about the child tax credit? Who came up with it in the first place? I think the names are Al Gore and Tom Downey, who both served in this body who long ago presented a child tax credit proposal. How did it become law? It eventually became law with the signature of a Democratic President in 1997 when we passed the Balanced Budget Act with the support of a large number of Members on both sides of this aisle, balancing the budget, not busting it as this Republican tax bill would do.

The child tax credit has had strong Democratic support within our caucus and within the Committee on Ways and Means on which I serve, and the only reason any Democrat has voted against that child tax credit on this floor was when it was used, much as the flag has been misused this afternoon, as the reason for voting for a bill that gave most all of the help to the people at the top and none of the people at the bottom.

I am glad that my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has joined us this afternoon. He has announced to the American people that there are more important things to do than to ensure that the child tax credit is available to people that earn a mere $20,000, $25,000 a year. Who are those people? They are the people that empty the bed pans at the nursing homes. They are the cafeteria workers in our public schools. They are the people that we check out with at the gas station when we go in to pay for our gas. They are people that are sweeping the floors today at the hospitals around America.

Why do those young women and men not have an opportunity to get the same type of child tax credit available to those at the top? They are working. Some of them are working two and three jobs to have a chance to advance out of poverty and share in the American Dream. They respect the flag just as much as the gentleman from Georgia does, but they would also like to share in a little of the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, how very timely is the old warning of Abraham Lincoln about those ``trusting to escape [the] scrutiny [of war] by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory.'' Our troops deserve our fullest support for their tremendous sacrifices, and they certainly have mine. Let us truly honor American sons and daughters in uniform, not with mere words, but with adequate health care and a thriving economy, not an Everest of public debt for their children. Let our nation-building begin here at home with adequate schools, jobs, and opportunity.

What this Administration calls a ``coalition'' is, in fact, the U.S., the UK, and hefty advertising. No war in American history has been better marketed.

The very weakness of our new ``first strike,'' ``security through attack'' policy and the repeated failure to connect Iraq with the outrage of 9/11 necessitates resolutions like this that must

borrow strength from the bold courage of our troops. Surely the thousands combing Iraq today for weapons of mass destruction will find at least a trace, but an honest assessment requires asking whether this second-rate tyrant, unable to effectively defend himself, really ever had the capability to endanger our families.

Americans continue to do most of the dying and will do almost all of the paying for this indefinite engagement. Let us guard against it becoming a war without end. With unlimited dollars, we have mastered so well the terrible technology of death, but true security demands wisdom as well as strength.

Mr. Speaker, this is a martial law rule, and that is appropriate because there are those in this House and in this country that think the role of all the representatives here is to march in a martial fashion behind the leadership of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

So it is appropriate they bring this rule out today, a gag rule, to gag those of us that do not share the views of the majority leader, who might have an amendment or an alternative way to address the problems that American families face. They deny us that right. They have assured there will be no substitutes considered on this floor. It is their way or the highway. It is a martial America that they are supporting and appropriate they bring this rule up to do it.

Their ideas are so narrow and so extreme that they cannot stand to have them debated and voted upon, not so much worrying about the Democrats but worrying that some members of their own party could not be held in line against solid alternatives to do something for the millions of Americans that lack jobs in this Bush economy; to do something about the millions of Americans who lack insurance in this Bush economy; to do something about the children who are denied the opportunity to fulfill their full potential because of teacher freezes, because there are textbooks that will not be renewed in Texas.

Meanwhile, the President tells us that he has to break his promise on the ``Leave No Child Behind'' Act. He has come up with a mere $9 billion, that is billion with a ``B,'' billion dollars. He breaks his promise in the short period

of time that he advanced a bipartisan proposal for education that we all came behind. Now he will break his promise and not fulfill the promise he made to the American people. Though we do not have the money for our children to get access to new textbooks, we do not have enough money for that, we do have enough money for more tax breaks for those at the top of the economic ladder.

The budget deficit puts a hole in the pocket of every American every day of their lives. It threatens the very foundation of our culture. We must seize and act upon this historic opportunity to solve this, the most pressing issue facing the country.

Those are not my words, though I find them rather eloquent. They are the words of Treasury Secretary John Snow in 1995 but forgotten by him now that he has a new job in the administration. No ``Snow job'' can hide this administration's Mt. Everest of debt. Mr. Snow got a new job and a new viewpoint at the same time millions of Americans were losing their jobs in this sorry economy.

A few weeks ago, the President announced a tax cut of the size that will be imposed on America tonight and said that it was just a ``little bitty'' tax cut. Well, Mr. Snow is coming the same week and asking us to raise the debt ceiling by billions of dollars. Is that a ``little bitty'' increase? No, they practically need an extension ladder over there at the Treasury Department because they cannot get the debt ceiling raised fast enough before they are back having to go up a little higher and raise it some more.

Of course, they turn to us and say, ``it is the people's money, give it back to them. It is their taxes.'' Well, it is the people's debt, too, and they are going to have a whole lot more of it. And not billions, but trillions, with a ``T,'' trillions of dollars in additional debt if this lame economic policy, this sorry tax break, one after another writeoff for the rich, is imposed on the children and the grandchildren of America.

This is a borrow and spend Republican Party, and that is why they have to have martial rules because they cannot permit Congress to consider alternative proposals. They cannot have full and fair debate. They need everybody to line up in a line and stand to borrow more from the people of this country. A ``no'' vote is a vote for fiscal responsibility that ensures our children will not be burdened by today's excesses.

Mr. Speaker, ``There is no more fragile construct than a stone wall. In any scandal, the shortest route to safety is always the truth.'' [144 Cong. Rec. H1333 (1998).

These are the most appropriate words of Majority Leader, Tom Delay. And yet one full week after asking the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to come clean about the reported attempts to divert Federal resources for purely political purposes in Texas, all we have is that very same fragile stone wall.

The administration obstruction has now turned into State document destruction. Borrowing a page from Enron's playbook, State destruction has been ordered of all notes, correspondence, photos, et cetera, related to the search for Texas legislators; and at the same time, the Department of Homeland Security indicates that it has ``no idea how long the investigation would take or when the tapes might be released.''

Never known as ``Timid Tom,'' it is time for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to join us in getting immediate disclosure of all related documents and end the stonewalling.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman was expressing concern about using the Federal Bureau of Investigation with reference to political purposes. The gentleman is aware that it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who himself talked about calling out the G-men, the government men, and mentioned using the FBI. We have seen that movie ``U.S. Marshal'', pulling in the U.S. Marshal on this. This is all in addition to Homeland Security. He said that he had a former Justice Department official on his staff investigating this and that they pulled in some United States attorney, those are the people in charge of prosecuting crimes in the State of Texas, but some United States attorney down there who was also diverted to this political task.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year, as the Texas legislature convened, it faced, and continues to face, some truly significant problems: a budgetary crisis; proposals to drop 250,000 children from the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that their mothers will be faced with the crisis of trying to decide how to handle an illness and perhaps let it go until they have to go to the emergency room; proposals to stop the publication of new textbooks; in one school district after another, a freeze on the hiring of new teachers.

With all of these problems, it is understandable that the Republican leadership of the State early on expressed a reluctance to take up the question of redistricting. One statewide Republican figure referred to redistricting as like having the flu. I do not think that he envisioned that it was the lethal kind that Texas had last week.

Now, Mr. Speaker, fast forward several months to last week, and we find redistricting at the center of a struggle where Democrats are working in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and Republicans are twiddling their thumbs under the Capitol dome in Austin. How did this happen? Well, it happened very directly as expressed by our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to The Washington Post when asked why they were doing redistricting. He said, ``I'm the majority leader and I want more votes.'' He was very direct about it. Not unlike his answer when questioned about lighting up his cigar in a Federal building, and he said, ``I am the Federal Government,'' when questioned about this apparent violation of the rules for operation of Federal buildings here in Washington.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is willing to cut however many communities he needs to cut in Texas, to split up communities that have been together since the beginning of our State, if that is what it takes to get him more votes. The question that several of my colleagues have been asking throughout Washington today is whether there has been a going over the limits with reference to using Federal resources in order to further that political agenda. And the reason those questions were raised were comments from Mr. DeLay: his indication that he had a former Justice Department official working on it in his office; that he had a United States Attorney working on it in Texas; that he thought the FBI and the U.S. marshals ought to be pulled into this.

Well, where are we today? Our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, this morning sought to get the information about whether the Homeland Security Department had been used for political purposes. He was stonewalled. This afternoon, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), sought to get similar information from the Justice Department. She also was unable to get an answer. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been strangely quiet.

The security level of our Nation, the danger to our families, goes up. Comments from Mr. DeLay? They go down.

I think the public has a right to know whatever it is that they are so determined to cover up. If this was merely a routine law enforcement request, they do not need an inspector general. Just release the tapes and the other related documents so that everyone can see. Instead, they have ducked and dodged and tried to assign the investigation to a political functionary.

This weekend, the latest chapter in all of this. Instead of responding directly to a communication from 16 Members of Congress to release these documents, we got excerpts of tapes. We got an indication that a gentleman named Clark Kent Irvin was going to be the inspector general who would tidy all this up, investigate it, and give us a fair and complete report as to whether anything had gone amiss. And the Department of Homeland Security indicated in comments to several newspapers around the country that they were mighty proud of Clark. They thought he could do a really good job of this and pointed to his recent work in service to this administration.

What they did not point out was that Mr. Irvin is a perennial Republican candidate, having run for Congress and tried to become a member of the delegation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); having run in what later was an aborted race for the Houston City Council; having run for State representative; and having failed in these several runs for elective office, then began to take a series of Republican patronage jobs.

To his credit, after inquires from the press yesterday and another letter that a number of us sent from the Texas delegation, Mr. Irvin has withdrawn himself from the investigation.

Mr. Speaker, not content as U.S. House commander, redistricting czar, and mapmaker for the Texas Legislature, J. Edgar DeLay apparently seeks a job directing law enforcement.

His first response to political differences is to call in the G-men, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals to brazenly pursue his political foes. [AP, Suzanne Gamboa, May 13, 2003] He told reporters that ``bringing in either U.S. Marshals or FBI agents is justified because redistricting is a federal issue.'' [Houston Chronicle, May 13, 2003]

The United States attorney in San Antonio was asked to explore how to employ Federal resources. [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 14, 2003; Washington Times, May 14, 2003] Meanwhile, someone in the Homeland Security Department was enlisted to track a cotton farmer from Hale Center, Texas. [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 14, 2003] According to Plainview airport manager Marlin Miller, the Homeland Security official ``made the comment that I think this is some kind of political people they're looking for.'' [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 15, 2003]

Americans had thought this Department was to look for terrorists. Perhaps those who attacked these courageous citizen-legislators would treat them as terrorists. This is how tyranny begins, and that is why 16 Members of the House are requesting an official Administration explanation.

America is waiting. Who is hiding now?

Mr. Speaker, George Bush made his first address to the Nation as President-elect from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives. Today that same House is in lockdown. He was introduced by Democrat Speaker Pete Laney. Today, Mr. Laney is at work with 50 courageous colleagues in Ardmore, Oklahoma, while some Republicans outrageously call them ``fugitives'' and ``criminals.''

Throughout his campaign, Mr. Bush professed to be a ``uniter, not a divider.'' If that quickly-abandoned moniker is ever to achieve any meaning, perhaps home in Texas is the best place for him to practice what he preached. Mr. President, tell Karl Rove to stop messing with Texas. Mr. President, tell Tom DeLay to withdraw his redistricting plan that slices and dices communities across our State.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

A distinguished predecessor as President of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower, pledged, ``I shall go to Korea.''

To achieve peace, why don't you simply pledge, ``I shall go to Austin.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

To those who say that these Texas State representatives essentially ``took their marbles and went home,'' remember that this game was fixed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) before these folks ever had a chance to play.

To our colleague who dared mention the heroes of the Alamo, (Mr. Johnson of Texas) it takes far more courage to put your political life on the line than to follow like sheep. And how ironic, it was William Barrett Travis who drew that line in the sand at the Alamo, and it is the county named for him that is being sliced and split apart like never before in the history of our great State.

Desertion, yes. The people of Texas were deserted when Tom's buddies refused to have redistricting hearings around the State and listen to the people and when my neighbors in Travis County were locked out of those hearings and then ignored. That is the real desertion that these brave Texans--Dawnna Dukes, Eddie Rodriguez, Elliott Naishtat, and their colleagues are fighting in Ardmore, Oklahoma, this morning.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.

In addition to those very persuasive statements from Republican leaders in Texas, is the gentleman aware of where President Bush, after he had been declared the President-elect by the Supreme Court, where he had his initial speech to introduce himself to the Nation as our President-elect?

In other words, the very same room, the very chamber of the Texas capital that is under lockdown tonight is where President Bush chose, on his own, to go and introduce himself to the Nation.

Is the gentleman aware of the individual that he asked to introduce himself to the American people as our President-elect?

And I believe the President was complimentary of Mr. Laney and of the Texas House of Representatives and its members. And where is Mr. Laney tonight?

Well, if the gentleman would yield to me for just a couple of minutes on both those points.

First, I would say that it is really important to the future of our democracy that we permit diverse points of view to be heard. I believe that our country is stronger when we respect and show tolerance for opposing points of view. And the idea that everyone in Washington and in Austin has to follow lockstep behind Tom DeLay and his extreme point of view, and I believe his point of view needs to be represented here, but I do not think all the rest of us have to agree to it. And that is really what this is about.

Now, President Bush told our country again and again and again that he was a uniter, not a divider. He said that he could work with the Texas legislature, and he pointed to people like Pete Laney and said what good friends they were and how cooperative they were. In fact, he bragged on most every one of those Democrats that is up in Ardmore tonight and said what great people they were.

Well, the gentleman's position is very well founded, trying again to tie themselves to our sons and daughters who stood in harm's way in our American military, proudly, for our country. But right, at that very microphone this morning, our colleague from Houston, Mr. Culberson, stood up and compared the same Democrats George Bush had his arm around and claimed they were like suicide bombers.

When I hear that kind of extremism, I think whether it is in Texas or up here, that is a fellow that has been spending too much time around Tom DeLay. It kind of rubs off. And while we need to tolerate that point of view, as extreme as it is, we do not want everybody in America to have to be just like Tom DeLay.

Was he not the same fellow who said that Baylor, up in your town, that he thought you could not get a Godly education at Baylor or Texas

Well, I think the gentleman himself had some years over at A&M. And I can think, as a Longhorn, of a lot of reasons people ought not to go to A&M, but not getting a Godly education there was never real high on anyone's list until Tom pronounced it.

Now, I just want to conclude this part, if the gentleman will continue to yield to me.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the action of leaving the State of Texas and going from Austin to Ardmore, and I have yet to find anyone in Austin that goes to Ardmore for a vacation, but I am sure it is a nice place, and I know it has the Gene Autry Museum and other fine attributes; but they did not go up there on a lark. They took this extraordinary action because, as our colleague from Marshall, Texas (Mr. Sandlin) pointed out, they had extraordinary intimidation, they had extraordinary arrogance.

But the point I want to emphasize, when we hear these attacks made on these brave Texas legislators, remember who their pal was just a few years ago. That was Governor George Bush. That is where he chose to introduce himself to the Nation. I would just urge again tonight that the President consider the problems that are being caused in Texas by this kind of extremism, and that if he is a uniter and not a divider, though we have not seen a great deal of evidence of that, that he unite the Texas House; that he go right to the place where he kicked off his Presidency and work to bring people back together. Because we cannot go on in this fashion.

There is a second aspect to this that is very troubling, and the gentleman from Marshall made reference to it, and that is the involvement of Federal resources. It is one thing for a colleague to proclaim these extreme views, and it is one thing for the very Texas legislators that our colleague is talking about to basically concede that redistricting in Texas is of, by, and for Tom DeLay. In fact, not only are they not denying it, I think he is kind of proud of it, that he can go down there and kind of throw his weight around and tell people where to draw the lines and which communities to cut up.

But it goes beyond that, that kind of arrogance, that kind of intimidation when you begin to use taxpayer-financed resources to advance that agenda and when you pull in institutions from Federal law enforcement and try to convert them into your private police force.

That is why, as the gentleman from Jefferson County and from Harris County and from McLennan County and from all the Texans that are here, we have joined today in a statement and in a communication to Attorney General John Ashcroft, to Secretary Tom Ridge at the Homeland Security Department, and to Director Robert Mueller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because we are most alarmed that yesterday Tom DeLay himself indicated that he already had a United States Attorney, a taxpayer-funded employee of the people in Texas, researching how they could employ Federal resources to bring these legislators, who have committed no crime and certainly there is no Federal offense involved in staying there and working in Ardmore, Oklahoma, until the Republicans in Austin decide to play by the rules.

We also read from today's press that Tom DeLay told reporters the justification for this, of bringing in U.S. marshals or the Federal Bureau of Investigation is because redistricting concerns a Federal issue. And a spokeswoman, according to another publication in the U.S. Attorney's office in San Antonio, Texas, said she had no official comment; but a source confirmed that an unidentified person had called to inquire about federalizing the arrest warrant. That is taxpayer resources. That is using the Federal Bureau of Investigation in much the way that Richard Nixon did in Watergate.

And there is another aspect of this, a further report. How did they happen to find these Texas legislators at a Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma, of all places? Well, it did not just happen by chance. According to today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, one Federal agency that became involved early on was the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center based in Riverside, California, which now falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department.

The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined that the plane belonged to former House Speaker Pete Laney, Democrat, of Hale Center, and I would add parenthetically, who just happens to be the same Pete Laney that was introducing President Bush to

the Nation in the House of Representatives' chambers in Austin that is locked down tonight.

The paper goes on to report the location of Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information, because Craddick, that is Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, said it is how he determined the Democrats were in Ardmore.

That is a use of Federal resources. We have had ample reason to be concerned in recent months about whether the Federal law enforcement services would be used with reference to our private lives, and we have ample reason to be concerned when a powerful figure like majority leader Tom DeLay is involved with these Federal agencies when the Federal agencies from Homeland Security are out there tracing a plane operated by an elected official in Texas to give clues as to where these legislators are.

That would appear to be the report not from me, but from this morning's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a very credible newspaper in our State. It is the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center. I would suppose that is the same entity that is supposed to be monitoring any airplanes that might be coming this way and placing American citizens again in harm's way, but they apparently had time, according to the newspaper report, and citing as apparently a source they talked to, Texas Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick, that they had time to provide him with key information.

It is unusual they would be following a plane from Hale Center, Texas, in the Texas Panhandle to Ardmore, Oklahoma, but apparently they had time to do that. As the gentleman knows full well as being one of the signatories of this letter, our concern is that there is a war on terrorism, and that resources would be diverted by Tom DeLay or other people away from the war on terrorism, away from fighting crime and into politically motivated activity of this nature.

Of course we have the tragic history of Watergate that led to the departure of a President and growing disrespect and cynicism of our people as a result of the Watergate scandal, the misuse, the invasion of people's personal information, the misuse of Federal law enforcement services. That has been one of the concerns that people have had as we have given more and more power in our desire to combat those who would threaten our families, but giving more and more power to John Ashcroft and the people over at the Department of Justice. That is why we all write and ask to be assured that they are doing everything possible to see that there is no Federal tax dollar involved and that there is no diversion, but there would appear that there has already been some activity in this area.

I think it is a sign of desperation, a sign of extremism, a sign of the same kind of arrogance that goes to the Texas Legislature after the Governor, after the Lieutenant Governor, after the Speaker, all Republicans, as well as a number of Republican State senators have said, ``We got a lot of problems. We want to focus on Texas. We don't need to take up redistricting.'' But now the pressure has been put on, the hammer has been applied there to them as individuals, and the knife has been pulled out to slice up one community after another in our State.

They apparently had that information and supplied it to the Texas Speaker of the House.

He is a pretty good farmer up there. Mr. Laney is a farmer, a citizen legislator. I doubt there are that many Texans outside of west Texas that know precisely where Hale Center is. I do not know. Maybe that is why the current Speaker of the House had to turn to some Federal agency that is supposed to be protecting us from threats to try to find out where Mr. Laney's plane had gone from Hale Center.

That seems to be what is reported by the Associated Press, the comments in the Houston Chronicle, in the Fort Worth Star- Telegram and in the Washington Times, all of these papers with Mr. DeLay as the principal source on most of them himself since he is rather proud of the way he projects his power around here. And certainly our concern is that resources that are very much needed to protect our families not be diverted for a personal political police force.

I want to thank the gentleman for taking the leadership on this. This is something that affects more than a few Members of Congress or even something as big as the State of Texas. It does affect the future of our democracy and whether alternative voices will be heard or will instead just be monitored by Federal agencies as they fly a plane or travel or engage in their personal lives.

I cannot help but conclude as I see colleagues from Harris County in saying, as the gentlewoman from Harris County pointed out, under the DeLay plan my home county, my hometown that I have spent all my life in, that I represent 80 percent of the people of now, within a stretch of about a mile and a half, there are four congressional districts. One connects Lago Vista out on Lake Travis within the city limits of Houston, traveling through all the little rural towns in between. Another goes a length of about 400 or 500 miles connecting another part of Austin, around San Antonio, down the Rio Grande all the way almost to the tip of Texas. The other two will trail off in different ways.

It is the same kind of extremism that tries to bring in the FBI. It is the same kind of extremism that hammers the people in the Texas Legislature to do the plan that he wants done. And it is the same kind of community that is being split asunder, the community that has the name of William Barrett Travis on it, who stood there and drew that line in the sand at the Alamo. It is that community that is being torn in four pieces in a way that is as unfair to the people that are being attached to Travis County as it is to the people of Travis County.

I thank the gentleman and all my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to turning around this economy, assisting the many who have lost their jobs since President Bush got his, this Administration does not have a clue. With a deficit larger than a fleet of aircraft carriers, these Republicans have no idea how to bring our struggling economy in for a soft landing.

As always, their snake oil cure-all is the same old ``Dr. George's red-ink elixir.'' No matter how irresponsible, no matter how many lives are endangered, they award more tax breaks to the fat cats, and if you are not among the elite few, than, frankly, my dear, they do not give a flip.

With the largest deficit in American history adding to a national debt spiraling to almost unimaginable heights, extremists borrow more from us all in order to give tax breaks to a few, and the funds they so freely loot are the very hard-earned dollars we contribute for our Social Security and Medicare.

In Texas, we are suffering a freeze on hiring teachers, no new textbooks, and meanwhile while the President breaks his promise to fund $9 billion of the ``Leave no child behind'' law. This revenue depleting vote is the major education vote of the year. The bill does not raise all boats. It hangs an immense anchor of debt on the necks of our children to whom it denies opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, when we think of Texas stereotypes, we think of cowboys and oil wells, longnecks and roughnecks. While we are proud of our past south of the Red River, the future of Texas increasingly lies, like the future of this country, with technology. That has been central to the development of our economy in central Texas.

Now the Clean Energy Incubator and the Austin Clean Energy Initiative are attracting national attention to our community. We are on the cutting edge of a new Texas that is creating jobs and helping preserve our precious natural resources with renewable energy solutions.

That is why, as the poster of the armadillo and the State capitol shows, it is Austin and the Texas hill Country in the ``Journey to the center of the sustainable Earth''. One would think, given the tremendous cost, not only in money but in blood, of having an energy policy that can keep our economy going, that someone at some time would begin to focus on sustainable energy and a new national energy policy.

This bill pays some pretense to supporting renewable energy, but the focus is not on conservation or sustainable energy. The focus is on the same type of oil-polluting industries where we have put most of our resources in the past.

Energy security is national security.

It is time we focused on renewable energy. Instead, this bill is not so much an energy policy as it is a collection of unjustified tax breaks, loopholes, and dodges masquerading as an energy policy.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in this whole area of how we will treat those corporations that loved America so much that at a time of great national concern after the events of 9-11, a few corporations loved America so much that they left America. They refused to pay their fair share of the cost of our national security and homeland security.

Those fleeing corporations, where do they go for protection? Naturally, to the House Republican leadership and to this bill, a so- called national energy bill. What does it do for those corporations that abandon America at a time of great need? It grants them amnesty. It says ``go right ahead, do not pay your fair share of taxes on your American income. You do not have to do anything or rely on the Bermuda military for your protection.'' It says ``let those businesses and neighbors here in the United States that pay their fair share of taxes pay for those corporations that run off to Bermuda or Barbados.''

In this bill, even worse than their last bill, they moved the date for amnesty up a full year, from March of last year, and they grant that amnesty, interestingly enough, until just after the next Presidential election when they are going to ``explore'' this issue some more. This is one of the most outrageous of many outrageous provisions in this bill. At a time when so many Americans are sacrificing, these corporations are heading for the sands of Bermuda to plant their mailboxes firmly there, while our flag is planted in sands elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this morning provides yet another example of the complete indifference of this House Republican leadership to the retirement security of millions of older Americans. Like their pseudo-prescription drug plan, which is not a plan to help seniors but only a scheme to subsidize HMOs and deny seniors their choice of doctors; like their persistence in seeking to privatize and undermine our Social Security system and end the basic guaranteed retirement upon which so many Americans have relied for the last seven decades. Today, Republicans reject the pleas of firefighters, of police officers, of teachers, and of the other public servants who have asked this Congress for years to correct the government pension offset that cuts into their retirement security after they have served America, often at very low wages in very critical jobs.

The Republicans' refusal to permit debate on the amendment that I offered or the amendment that our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) offered can only add to the cynicism of those who have strived for so long to have their voices heard in this Congress on this matter and who have yet to even get a vote on the floor, much less passage, of this measure.

Almost 200 Members of this House, including a substantial number of Republicans, have signed on as sponsors to a bill to repeal the government pension offset. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culbertson), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), Republicans all, and proud of it, sponsored last session and again this session a more modest proposal: Just cut the government pension offset in half and provide half a loaf to those firefighters and teachers. That proposal has been filed again this year as H.R. 75.

Now, for some unknown reason, though he is chairman of the subcommittee with the sole jurisdiction over this matter, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has never even bothered to ask for a hearing on his very own proposal, much less ask for a vote on it, much less bring it to the floor of this House.

So I acted in a very modest way, joined our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) in committee when this measure was forced back to the committee for its first-ever vote, and we offered the bill for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

We were prouder of it than he was. We asked for a vote from him but, more importantly, for the millions of Americans, retirees, near retirees, who serve the public, who are counting on these Republicans to address their retirement security issues, we asked for a vote on their proposal, written not in our words but in the Republican author's words.

And what happened? Well, these Republicans who did not have the slightest intention of ever advancing the proposal that they offered, they all voted against their own proposal. And so in the Committee on Rules, quite naturally, they said they do not want to bring these amendments out here to the floor, because the Republicans will vote against the very proposals that they have been writing to their constituents about and that they are sponsoring.

This kind of total contradiction is what makes so many Americans question whether this institution, this House of Representatives, is the people's House and whether it is doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that though he has been largely in charge here for the last eight years, our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, now the Republican majority leader, says he agrees with our position, not their position. He wrote one constituent recently: ``I strongly believe that the GPO is an unfair and misguided piece of legislation. It undercuts the people who have spent their entire working life paying into the Social Security system by denying them their fair share of the hard-earned money they contributed. Married couples should be able to share those benefits with their spouses.''

I could not have said it better myself.

But words will not solve the problems of these teachers, firefighters, and police officers. This House can solve the problem. This House can solve it by voting today to support the previous question so we can get action on the floor. Words will not make any difference to the people out there who are counting on us. Letters and e-mails to constituents will not make any difference. A vote on the House floor to correct this problem, to adopt verbatim the Republican legislation and do it here on the floor of the House will respond to the needs of people across this country.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who help us provide security, security for our families, and they deserve a little retirement security. The Republicans know how to fix this problem; they have war-gamed against the enemy that undermines the retirement security. All they have to do is pass the relevant provisions of the Shaw bill and we want to give them that opportunity to pass a Republican piece of legislation. For once, a piece of legislation that will strengthen retirement security instead of undermining it like their prescription drug and privatized Social Security schemes.

We ask them to join with us today in a key vote, the first vote on the government pension offset by supporting the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) on the previous question. We will provide real retirement security coverage to the people of this country, not just political coverage, which is apparently all the authors of this legislation originally had in mind.

What a truly disappointing presentation. Mr. Speaker, this is not about ``gimmicks,'' and it is not really even about Texas teachers. It is about whether this Congress will have on the floor of the House its first ever vote in recent memory on correcting the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision.

Last year, when the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) contacted him about this, he said that these provisions seemed to be ``most unfair.'' He pointed out, quite correctly, that ``about 40 percent of the total number of affected beneficiaries are widows and widowers''; that ``240,000 affected beneficiaries are women.''

I think that we need an opportunity in this Congress to address the Government Pension Offset. When the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) released the GAO report to which he has referred today, although he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) use terms like ``fraud'' and attack the professional associations of our teachers in Texas, although he even has the audacity today to invoke our soldiers overseas against our police officers and our firefighters and teachers who deserve a GPO correction, when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) introduced the GAO report, he said ``The apparently growing use'' of what he calls a loophole ``is only a symptom of general concern about whether the GPO itself is fair. . . . That is why my plan . . . would reduce the Government Pension Offset.'' [Aug. 15, 2002 press release]

His plan that he refers to is the one that he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) voted against when we presented it in the Committee on Ways and Means. It is the plan which the Committee on Rules made out of order today. Not Texas teachers, not ``gimmicks,'' not the Texas Federation of Teachers, but police officers in New York City and firefighters in San Francisco, and everyone in between who has been a public servant and who has suffered as a result of this Windfall Elimination Provision, they are the ones that they are standing against today.

``GPO'' stands for ``Government Pension Offset.'' It cuts into the retirement security of dedicated public servants, like firefighters, police officers, and teachers who provide us physical and economic security and who need retirement security. ``GPO'' really means ``gouge police officers,'' and it gouges our teachers and firefighters seeking their well-earned retirement security.

GPO also stands for ``good photo opportunity.'' That is what is involved here. Whether it is police officers, firefighters, or teachers, Members are eager to stand with them and get their picture taken. But when it comes time to vote with them and protect their retirement security, they come up with one excuse after another.

This provision dealing with the self-help provisions that Texas teachers have used, and used in accordance with the letter of the law as written, specifically as written by this Congress, was buried on page 70 of the original bill. They did not even have the courage to bring it up for a vote in the committee at that point, or to wait until our Texas teachers could be here.

An apt analogy to what is happening here today is to find oneself driving down a highway and seeing a senior citizen, a retired teacher, pulled off along the side of the road with a flat tire.

The reaction of most folks is to stop and help. Well, the Congress comes along and it stops to help. It tells the retirees, ``You cannot fix this problem yourself,'' the way our Texas teachers have done, ``that is our job.'' Then, while the senior waits for help, the Congress gets back in the car and drives off, leaving them stranded beside the road.

That is exactly what has happened here as this Republican Congress refuses to address the problem that our Texas teachers and our firefighters are rightly concerned about. Instead, they pick up a tire iron all right, but they are using it on our retirees, not the flat.

The GPO bills introduced and never set for a hearing or never voted on will never provide retirement coverage, only political coverage. When Members pose with public servants for a good photo opportunity, a ``GPO,'' they hope those employees will not notice that: When they smile, the real message is, ``I am standing with you, but I am not voting with you.''

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the last speaker raised this issue of corporate loopholes, because it is the same crowd that stood in the Committee on Ways and Means repeatedly and on the floor of this House and has defended corporations that renounce their citizenship and head off for tax havens like Bermuda. They say that this is fine, that this is legal, and that we do not need to do anything about it.

As to the Government Pension Offset and the issue of the alleged ``loophole'' in Texas, what the gentleman failed to mention is that we offered in committee to close the alleged ``loophole'' for Texas teachers, but to do it in connection with reforming the GPO problem that they have consistently refused to correct all this time. Fix the two together.

We make them that same offer today. This is not about gimmicks in Texas, it is about people that file bills, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has done, that they never intend to move through the Congress; file bills they do not even get a hearing on, and say they are on the side of the firefighters, police officers, and teachers while doing nothing for them.

Mr. Speaker, about 200 of us have regularly signed on as cosponsors to the legislation of our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), to repeal the Government Pension Offset. In the Committee on Ways and Means, a more modest proposal would simply cut the government pension offset in half. It is authored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and was joined by a number of Republicans on that committee.

In the committee, we sought not to leave some special provision that Texas teachers have used to protect themselves. We said instead, ``solve that problem.'' We did not use our language to correct the government pension offset; but we took verbatim the language of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), his words, joined by four or five Republican members of the Committee.

This motion would permit us to go back and get the correction that all of us have said we want. I do not believe those who suffer from this offset want merely a promise in every pot. They do not want just a committee hearing; they want action. With this motion to recommit, we would get that action and get it promptly for all the firefighters, police officers, and teachers in all the 50 States who deserve to have that done.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, today in this troubled world, many of us are moved to prayer and sober reflection. We lift up our voices for the safety of America's sons and daughters bravely executing their orders in the Persian Gulf, for the many innocent civilians who join them in harm's way, for the many patriots for peace in this country, may they express their well-justified concerns in ways that unite more Americans in our shared concern for humanity, rather than acting in ways that reinforce fear and alienation.

Our democracy is stronger when it respects the views of all people.

``I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work they are doing. . . . But I cannot support a failed foreign policy.'' [House floor speech, April 28, 1999] Those words of the Republican Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), during the Kosovo military action have never been more appropriate than today.

While many can be certain to take credit for the swift military victory that may ensue, this Administration must also accept responsibility for the cost of conflict in blood, in money, and insecurity to our families. It may take decades to undue the damage to our safety wrought by misguided policies and failed diplomacy.