[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10742-10748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           CONCERNING THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ENERGY TASK FORCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern this evening 
over Vice President Cheney's abusing his power as Vice President to 
continue to keep secret documents that could significantly impact our 
Nation's future energy policy and the effect the Bush administration's 
energy policies are having on American families and on our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, almost immediately after entering office, Vice President 
Cheney took it upon himself to convene what would later be called the 
energy task force. The unnamed participants of this secret task force 
came together to advise the Bush administration on energy policy and 
develop what would become the administration's official energy plan. 
However, in the 3 years since the energy task force released its 
report, the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the 
records and participants of the task force secret. This task force 
played a critical role in developing a major policy initiative with a 
direct impact on everything from our economy to our environment. Still, 
the Vice President has refused to let the American people know who made 
up this energy task force or how and why the task force came to the 
conclusions that it did.
  I am going to get back to this in a minute, but first I want to 
address the rise in gas prices which I think ultimately is related to 
the issue of the energy task force.

                              {time}  2015

  Earlier today, I heard the argument that if Congress passes the 
energy bill devised by the secret Cheney task force, consumers would be 
alleviated from the high gasoline prices we are witnessing across the 
country. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that not only is this argument 
foolish, but it is also wrong. The Republican-passed energy bill would 
do nothing to address the rising cost of gasoline; and, in fact, the 
bill has provisions that would make gasoline even more expensive.
  In fact, a study released in February by the Energy Information 
Administration found that the provisions in the energy bill would have 
only a negligible effect on energy production, consumption, and prices; 
but that negligible effect would be far outweighed by a provision 
requiring the use of ethanol. The report concluded that such a 
provision would actually increase the average gasoline price by 3 cents 
per gallon and the price for reformulated gasoline by an average of 8.1 
cents. So the study concludes that provisions in the Republican energy 
bill would actually increase gas prices, and I certainly know that my 
constituents would not like to see that happen, particularly as we now 
move into the Memorial Day week.
  What President Bush and his administration do not understand is that 
high gas prices impact all of us, consumers and businesses alike. 
Gasoline prices have increased 38 percent since December 2003, with the 
average price for a gallon of regular unleaded at just over $2. High 
fuel costs translate into a loss of profit margins for the 
manufacturing and transportation sectors that force prices for products 
and services higher, hitting American consumers twice. Not only do 
Americans need to dole out more cash to fill their gas tanks with the 
little disposable income that they have left; they are be strangled by 
rising health care costs, higher education costs, and now higher costs 
in goods and services.
  I just want to give some stories from struggling Americans that show 
that the hardships are being felt from coast to coast. I quote first 
DeAnn from Salt Lake City, Utah, who writes: ``My husband and I own a 
small trucking company. Due to the rise in fuel, we have let three 
drivers go and sold the trucks and trailers. This was very hard to do, 
but in an effort to keep the other two drivers working, we had to. I 
know of two other small companies that are doing the same, and the 
burden is just too much.''
  I have another letter from Sara, who lives in Virginia Beach, 
Virginia, and she writes: ``As a military family, the rising gas prices 
are taking a big chunk of our disposable income. We have two small 
fuel-efficient cars, thankfully, but our cost to fill up our cars is 
easily $10 more every time. Unfortunately, we will not be driving much 
this summer because of it. I really wish the President would take more 
of an interest in the problems of middle working-class families like 
ours.''
  Not only does Sara think, Mr. Speaker, that President Bush does not 
care about the impact that gasoline prices have on Americans, but 
another gentleman, Jon Meade Huntsman, who is the founder of the 
largest privately held chemical manufacturing corporation in the United 
States, was recently quoted saying: ``The average guy on the street is 
getting killed because this administration does not care.''
  Mr. Speaker, many in Congress have requested that President Bush 
temporarily suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
put this oil in the marketplace. If President Bush reduced the amount 
of oil placed in the Petroleum Reserve, more would be on the market and 
prices would moderate for Americans now. The SPR can then be 
replenished when oil prices are lower. But as we know, President Bush 
refuses to do this because of national security concerns, he claims. 
But I would like to know why President Bush has no concern for the 
health of the American economy.
  The American people are tired of rising gas prices. In my State 
alone, in New Jersey, gas prices have increased 48 percent, costing New 
Jersey families an additional $869 per year. This figure jumps to 
$1,037 for households with teenagers. In the general U.S. marketplace, 
gasoline prices will cause a $1.3 billion increase in costs for 
farmers, which will force American consumers into paying higher prices 
for food. The trucking industry will experience a $6.3

[[Page 10743]]

billion increase in the cost of its services, and airlines will see a 
$7.5 billion increase because of fuel costs. In fact, just yesterday I 
read that Continental Airlines has sought to impose a fuel surcharge 
for their services and reported that it is considering layoffs and cuts 
in wages and pension benefits in response to the struggle they are 
facing with the surging oil prices.
  So the real impact of all this is a slowdown in the economy with a 
potential even for more job losses. In fact, an estimate by Merrill 
Lynch shows that every penny increase in gasoline prices at the pump is 
equal to $1 billion in lost consumer spending. That is nearly $25 
billion in lost spending since the beginning of this year.
  All of this is happening on the watch of the Bush administration that 
vowed to make energy policy a priority in the United States. Yet 4 
years after President Bush took office, we have no national energy 
policy, and we have no national energy policy because the bill that the 
White House presented to Congress was filled with an extraordinary 
collection of energy industry giveaways. And to make matters worse, 
these giveaways do little or really nothing to moderate gas prices.
  The President should have promoted meaningful policies that would 
increase fuel efficiency and conservation measures and provide for 
expanded use of renewable and alternative fuels.
  I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what exactly has the Bush 
administration done over the last 4 years to cut gas prices? During 
that time the country lost five refineries with the total number of 
operating refineries dropping from 158 to 153; and while Republicans 
blame difficult regulatory hurdles for new refineries, I would like to 
highlight that the Democrats included a policy in our 2001 energy plan 
with streamlined regulatory guidelines for permitting new refineries or 
for additional capacity to existing facilities when these permits did 
not detrimentally impact environmental standards.
  I would also like to highlight data compiled by Bloomberg showing 
that mergers over the last few years have partially contributed to 
today's high gas prices. Since President Bush took office in January 
2001, the administration has approved 33 takeovers totaling $19.6 
billion. The Federal Trade Commission took no action to prevent any one 
of these 33 mergers. And today, Mr. Speaker, the largest five 
refineries operating in America, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, 
ExxonMobile, BP, and Valero, control over 52 percent of domestic 
refining capacity, up 18 percent in a decade. The top 10, which 
includes ChevronTexaco, Citgo, Marathon, Sunoco, and Tesoro, control 
78.5 percent, up 22 percent. With this market concentration, I think it 
is imperative that this administration seriously consider and review 
the impact that mergers have on consumers rather than watching out only 
for the CEOs who benefit from these business mergers.
  While the Bush administration has expressed the concern for rising 
prices, it seems like they are completely disregarding the March 2001 
report by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, FTC, which concluded that 
during that summer of 2000 price spike, certain suppliers had pursued 
``profit-maximizing strategies,'' intentionally withholding gasoline 
supplies or delaying shipping as a tactic to drive up prices. But today 
the Bush administration is doing nothing to investigate whether a 
similar situation might be occurring now.
  In fact, while Americans are paying higher prices at the pump, oil 
companies are posting record profits. In the first quarter of this 
year, ChevronTexaco reported a 294 percent increase in profits; British 
Petroleum, 165 percent increase; Exxon Mobile, 125 percent increase; 
and ConocoPhillips, a 44 percent increase in record profits.
  I would also like to note that policies not related to the energy 
bill actually increased demand in consumption of gasoline. In February, 
President Bush extended for another 4 years the duel-fuel loophole. 
This loophole allows auto manufacturers who produce vehicles that can 
run on more than one fuel type, although they rarely do, a tax credit 
towards meeting CAFE standards for the entire fleet. What this means, 
Mr. Speaker, in effect is that these companies can reduce fuel economy 
for the millions of other cars that they sell. And according to the 
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, this means the U.S. 
will consume an extra 40 to 110 million barrels of oil from 2005 to 
2008. Clearly, the Bush administration is not promoting policies that 
relieve Americans from high gas prices.
  What the administration really should be promoting are policies that 
make gasoline supplies more stable and provide resources for 
alternative energy sources. For instance, oil companies should be 
required to expand gasoline storage capacities and require them to hold 
significant amounts in that storage, and the administration should 
reserve the right to order these companies to release this stored gas 
in order to address supply and demand fluctuations.
  I also think that conservation and efficiency standards should be a 
priority. Democrats have always supported and have proposed innovative 
tax incentives for gains in energy conservation and efficiency such as 
a nonrefundable tax credit for higher efficiency vehicles.
  Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to go back to what I 
mentioned earlier regarding Vice President Cheney's energy task force. 
After 3 years of hiding the details regarding the task force, it 
appeared that we might finally get some of the information Cheney was 
fighting so hard to keep secret. The Sierra Club, as we know, and the 
conservative group Judicial Watch earlier this year jointly sued Vice 
President Cheney and the energy task force, seeking an accounting of 
energy industry participation in crafting the Bush administration's 
destructive energy policy.
  In response to that suit, a district court ordered the administration 
to provide information about participation from these industries, which 
the Bush administration refused to do. Of course, the President claimed 
constitutional immunity from these kinds of inquiries. But the district 
court rejected the Bush administration's contention, pointing out that 
the administration was attempting to ``cloak what is tantamount to an 
aggrandizement of executive power with the legitimacy of precedent 
where none exists.'' That is a quote from the court. I will read it 
again: that the Bush administration was attempting to ``cloak what is 
tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with the legitimacy 
of precedent where none exists.''
  Refusing, however, to give in, of course, Vice President Cheney 
appealed the district court's decision, asking, basically, the district 
court to make new law that would effectively shield the Bush 
administration from any scrutiny. And I just have to say again, in my 
mind, Mr. Speaker, this is the height of arrogance on the part of the 
Bush administration. They actually go to court and they ask the court 
to shield President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the rest of the 
administration from any scrutiny. Fortunately, the court denied that 
request, and then of course what did the Vice President do? He appealed 
the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in December the Supreme 
Court agreed to make argument public on the case. Of course, we do not 
have a decision yet, but they have heard the case.
  And the last thing that I wanted to mention in this regard, and I 
have mentioned it before here on the House floor, is the whole issue of 
Justice Scalia's involvement in the case and the fact that, in my 
opinion, he should have recused himself from any participation when 
this case came before the Supreme Court. We all know the story: Vice 
President Cheney treated Justice Scalia to a personal hunting vacation 
down in Louisiana. They went on Air Force Two down to Louisiana. And, 
of course, several questions have been raised by not only me but others 
with regard to this hunting trip or duck hunting trip to Louisiana and 
the potential conflict of interest. And I would just like to mention 
some of those questions again tonight before I close.
  First, was the energy executive that hosted the Vice President and 
Justice

[[Page 10744]]

Scalia on this duck hunting trip to Louisiana a member of the energy 
task force? Of course we do not know because the whole point of the 
suit is to determine who was a member of the energy task force, and so 
far the Vice President is not willing to provide that information.
  Second, was the Vice President attempting to use this trip, the duck 
hunting trip, as a way to persuade Justice Scalia that the documents 
being requested should remain secret under the cloak of executive 
privilege?
  And, third, how could either Vice President Cheney or Justice Scalia 
think that this trip in which both flew to and from Louisiana together 
on Air Force Two would not look like a conflict of interest?
  These questions remain unanswered, but I do not think there is any 
question in my mind and the public's mind. Certainly there have been 
many editorials on this subject that have said that Justice Scalia 
should have recused himself from hearing this case.

                              {time}  2030

  Of course, the one thing that I keep thinking in the back of my mind, 
Mr. Speaker, is, what if this ends up being one of those rather 
frequent 5-4 decisions, and Justice Scalia is one of the five? What are 
we going to think about that, given this trip to Louisiana?
  I am going to yield to the gentlewoman, but I did want to say, the 
one thing that is really significant about this Energy Task Force and 
the one thing that I am trying to bring out tonight is, regardless of 
what you think about the Energy Task Force and what happened behind 
closed doors in these secret meetings, because we do not really know 
what happened, hopefully we will find out at some point, depending on 
the Supreme Court's decision, but we know one thing clearly, and that 
is the task force came up with a bad energy policy.
  There is no doubt that the energy industry succeeded with its 
influence during these secret, closed-door meetings. The one thing we 
know is they managed to craft an energy policy that benefited them, 
rather than benefiting Americans, who, at the time, desperately needed 
relief from high energy prices. That continues today with the high gas 
prices. The problems continue, and the Bush administration does not 
want to do anything about it.
  I see the gentlewoman from Texas is here, and I yield to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for taking the time to very deliberatively chronicle for this 
body some of the concerns that we have expressed on a number of 
occasions.
  Let me just expand on the gentleman's presentation, primarily because 
I think it is important to note he is from New Jersey and I am from 
Texas. The energy industry is one that I work collaboratively with as 
constituents of my area, and I have often been here on the floor 
indicating the importance of an energy policy.
  We remember very well the number of Energy Secretaries in the Clinton 
administration, and on a number of occasions there were occurrences 
there that we disagreed with, but we were consistently working to give 
input on developing and embracing energy policy; and I still think, for 
the industry, that is the best way to go. That means we talk about 
conservation, we talk about solar, we talk about wind power, we talk 
about domestic production, which many of us have discussed over the 
period of time.
  I think what the administration is failing to see is that we are now 
at a logjam. We are stagnant, because we have a problem not only with 
the energy bill being stagnated, because it is one that has not brought 
in as many of the interests as it should, but we now have this parallel 
issue, where, frankly, we cannot get to the bottom of the truth; and we 
are using, if you will, judicial procedures that are thwarting simply 
providing us with the truth.
  This issue of ``executive privilege,'' which is something very 
sensitive to me, being on the Committee on the Judiciary, but I think a 
lot of that is overcome by the very facts that the gentleman has just 
allowed us to hear, and that is, of course, the close relationship 
between Justice and the Vice President, the disregard of that close 
relationship, to the extent it does not matter finding out why others 
with other perspectives could not have been part of those discussions.
  Our understanding is that any number of conservation groups 
repeatedly tried to access the meetings and provide information, and 
they were denied.
  We do not suggest, nor do I think the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey is suggesting, that policy-makers should not have the 
benefit of different perspectives, whether it be industry or whether it 
be others. But what we are talking about is the light of day. 
Government has to be transparent. Frankly, what we have seen is 
nontransparency.
  Might I just add to the gentleman's line of reasoning here, I know 
that the gentleman worked very hard on the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, and this is an issue of great importance, but on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, this is a question of whether or not there 
has been an abuse of power.
  My disappointment is, I recall maybe 3 or 4 years ago, let us say 4 
years ago, in an earlier administration, neither the door of the 
Committee on Government Reform nor the Committee on the Judiciary or 
the lights of those committees were ever turned off. We were in a 
constant state of investigation, trying; I suppose a majority at that 
time would argue they were trying to present a transparent government.
  But not only do we have the energy collapse and catastrophe and 
debacle, I am still, if you will, seething, I will use that term, and 
dismayed by Medicare.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the 
gentlewoman is saying, because I think when we talk about the 
Republican abuse of power and we use the Energy Task Force, or I think 
she is going to go into the Medicare issue as well, what we have to 
explain, I think, to our constituents and to the public is that the 
Republican majority here in the House has simply made it impossible, if 
you will, for Democrats, any Democrat, to participate in the process.
  So when I say that it is important to know what happened at this 
Energy Task Force and who was on it and what they did, it is not 
because of some secret feeling that this is crucial; it is because of 
the impact on public policy.
  We know that when the energy bill came to the House, as the 
gentlewoman mentioned, from my Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
came to the floor, basically it was a bill that came from this task 
force and that moved through the committee to the floor and over to the 
other body without any major changes, because they do not allow 
Democrats on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or even Republicans 
sometimes, to make changes from what the administration requested.
  So if we had gone through the normal deliberative process, where the 
White House came up with an idea, but there were all kinds of changes 
or a consensus was reached with the Democrats, where amendments were 
allowed, where we had a full debate, then maybe this would not be as 
significant.
  But that is not the way this Republican majority has been operating. 
They abuse their power by not having the deliberations, by not having a 
consensus in the committee, by not having amendments, by not having 
full debate on the floor.
  That is why what this secret task force did becomes even more 
important, because essentially they put together the bill that passed 
the House and that is now the Republican energy policy.
  We just have so many examples. I know the gentlewoman is going to get 
into them now with the Medicare bill, where they abused their power and 
did not allow the Democrats, the minority, to have any input. It is an 
abuse of the system. It really is.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman has made a very good point. I 
think it is very important, because

[[Page 10745]]

we are speaking about the very nature of our government, beyond the 
concept of Democrats, Republicans or a two-party government. We are 
also talking about checks and balances and oversight and 
responsibilities of this body.
  I do not believe when the dictates of oversight in our procedural 
body of rules that govern the House, they do not say, make sure those 
responsibilities of oversight only fall to Republicans when Democrats 
are in charge of the executive, or they only fall to Republicans or 
Democrats, if you will, or vice versa. It is the system of government, 
of transparency, that we are now speaking to.
  I think the consternation, if you will, and in some instances, 
outrage, is frankly because this is going on without the light of day.
  The gentleman has spoken about the energy bill. I have heard the 
ranking member eloquently announce the difficulty in even having a 
conference on the bill so that we could make this legislative 
initiative better for the American people, not for the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey or for the distinguished Member from 
California or for the Member from Texas.
  It is, frankly, to make this a working legislative initiative that 
will actually pass both Houses, if you will, the other body, and 
actually implement a process that the American people can utilize.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I can just reclaim my time, the 
gentlewoman makes a very important point that I want to emphasize, and 
that is the unwillingness and the arrogance, if you will, of the 
Republican majority to not allow for input from the Democrats. And the 
consequence of not having a consensus on something as important as 
national energy policy means that we never pass a bill and that we 
continue to be energy-dependent on Mideast oil and other foreign 
sources.
  This is because of the breakdown of Members. Even though the 
Republicans are in the majority in both Houses, the majority is very 
close. So if you take a position, as this Republican majority does in 
their leadership, that we are not going to allow input from Democrats, 
or even other views, then the consequence is, you have a stalemate and 
you do not pass a bill.
  That is the reason why we continue to be so dependent on foreign oil, 
because they are not willing to try to come up with something that we 
can all agree on. They will not allow input.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, the 
gentleman again clarifies the point. We are not only energy dependent, 
we are energy deficient, because I believe we could find ways 
cooperatively to look at alternative sources of energy.
  Coming from the State I come from, domestic production in many areas 
is very safe technologically. We have not enhanced that in ways where 
it has been welcomed. But because we have this cloud over this energy 
legislation, the gentleman is absolutely right, we are at a standstill. 
And while we are on this floor, there are millions of Americans in line 
for gasoline at gasoline stations, there are volunteers for Meals on 
Wheels, volunteers who take meals in to shut-ins' homes who are saying, 
I have to stop volunteering because I cannot afford $2 a gallon 
gasoline, which we are paying here in the United States.
  Of course, Europeans are listening to us with somewhat of a smile on 
their face.
  But the point is, that is not where the economy is now. Truck drivers 
are pulling trucks off to the side. Deliverers of pizza are pulling 
their cars off. So the quality of life has been impacted by denying 
people who are getting to school, trying to improve their lives, 
getting to an hourly wage job, trying to support their family. All of 
them are being impacted by the fact we are at inertia because of this 
energy legislation.
  If I might, just as an example, to continue this inequity, we see in 
both the administration and this Congress, we just got through 
finishing with the defense authorization bill. There were a number of 
Democratic amendments that would have been enormously valid and helpful 
in terms of where we need to move our military, both in terms of 
clearing up and saying to the world clearly that we denounce the 
atrocities that occurred in the Iraqi prison at the hands of our 
military personnel, as we abhor the decapitating of one of our very 
fine and able Americans. We are not diminishing that. That was beyond 
expression, beyond words.
  But in order for us to be America, the country that rises to the 
highest moral value, then we must show that we have oversight. Yet we 
spent the last 2 weeks talking, and I might say most of the talking has 
been in the other body; not investigating, not deliberating on how we 
can, if you will, pull out, extract out those who should be held 
accountable in that instance.
  The gentleman is right, I was about to mention Medicare.
  As we know, on June 1, these prescription drug cards will be coming 
out. I imagine that all of us might be able to see some glimmer of 
positiveness in any discount that our seniors would get. But as the 
gentleman recalls, I think now for 6 to 8 years, we have been 
constantly pounding the pavement, pounding on this podium and talking 
about a guaranteed prescription drug benefit, which some months ago we 
were on the precipice of attempting to get with a Medicare bill that 
could have been helpful to all Americans.
  But, unfortunately, again we have quagmire of smoke and mirrors, and 
questions of abuse have now raised their head, investigations that are 
not yet finished. There is some talk of bribery that occurred. But, 
more importantly, procedurally we find ourselves in a very strange 
climate, with almost, I have now put it up to 6 hours, maybe it was a 
4-hour vote open on the floor of this House in the wee, wee hours of 
the night, and frankly I believe that that is not the American way.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. PALLONE. We had a hearing today in the commerce committees, the 
Subcommittee on Health on the drug cards. And, of course, it was a 
hearing that was requested by the Republican majority because if we 
request it, they do not give us one. And I was amazed by their 
inability, not that I was amazed, their total inability to show the 
positive aspect of this discount drug card.
  I mean, obviously the purpose of the hearing was to showcase that 
this was a great idea that seniors were going to benefit from it. They 
put up the Web site and showed you how to access the Web site and 
showed you the hotline, how to access the program. Even with that, all 
that effort, it was a sham. It was a farce.
  These discount drug cards do not provide any savings. I had my 
seniors call me, first of all, most of them, many of them do not even 
have a computer so they can access the Web site. We tried to call the 
hotline yesterday, 30 minutes before you can even get on the hotline. 
And it is so confusing to the average senior that they have to kind of 
go on this Web site and see, of 70-some-odd cards, which one will offer 
a discount for a particular drug that they might need. But what they do 
not tell you, of course, is that next week the card company can change 
the price of the drug or they can decide to drop the drug, and that if 
you go to the local pharmacy, they do not have any obligation to take 
the card. Even if they take the card, they can charge more than the 
price because they may have to show a profit. So it is just 
unbelievable to me.
  Most of my seniors cannot even figure it out by looking at the Web 
site. I have to be honest, not only could I not figure it out, but 
there was an article in last week's Washington Post where one of the 
reporters, a long-time health reporter, went through this whole maze, 
and basically said it took her 9 hours to go through the process. And 
at the end of it, she did not know which card she should opt for.
  Again, it is what you said. This is a function of the fact that the 
Republicans do not want any input from the Democrats. If they had taken 
amendments, listened to us, tried to adopt some of the suggestions that 
we had, I believe that we could have come up with a good benefit. We do 
not even have a benefit now. It does not even go

[[Page 10746]]

into effect until 2006, and it will cost you more out of pocket than 
you will benefit from. And these are, again, the result of this 
arrogance, this abuse of power on the part of the Republican majority.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is a single thinking. Do you realize 
that just this past week, I think most of us got at least a slight 
shock, maybe it was even a larger shock, when they came to the floor of 
the House and did a, what would you call it, an en bloc rule with four 
and five bills in one rule to begin to dismantle rights that workers 
here in America have cherished for as long as we have had the OSHA 
regulations and rules that have created a safer workplace.
  Certainly concepts that should have been deliberated and debated for 
a long period of time, frankly, that maybe again in a bipartisan way, 
we could have few common grounds on the concept of helping small 
businesses, which is what it was represented to be.
  But when you shut off workers from the courthouse, when you open up 
opportunities to keep bad activity going in your workplace so that you 
do not have to respond to the OSHA citations, you can extend the time 
frame or not respond to them so you keep an unsafe working place under 
the pretense of being someone who is too economically unfeasible, if 
you will. All those bills passed with little sight and oversight by the 
American people.
  And here we are now with the child tax credit. Of course, that is a 
policy question. Some people want to raise the deficit $202 billion 
more than we already have. When I say ``raise it,'' make it go up more, 
so we are right in line getting $228 billion more to add to the deficit 
and leave 3 million working Americans off the list of a child tax 
credit. Again, that is a policy decision. I do not put that in the 
abuse of power, but I do put it in the inability to see the important 
aspect of us working together for better policies that serve the 
American public and serve our constituents across the board. That is a 
problem.
  Mr. PALLONE. I think it is a form of arrogance, if you think about 
it. Here you have a situation where we are in a deficit which continues 
to grow, a huge deficit, one of the biggest we have ever seen; and 
rather than try to give some money back to working people below a 
certain income, I think my recollection is that if your family, and you 
are working and working and you are making minimum wage, you would not 
get any money back. You get no credit. And if you are a family that is 
up in the 300,000 bracket, you get a $500 credit.
  So if you are buying into the theory, which I think the Republicans 
articulate, that somehow this tax credit will benefit the average guy 
so that they can go out and spend the money and that helps the economy 
and all, this is what they articulate on the floor, how is it that you 
do not give it to the guy, the working person who is making a lower 
salary, he probably is more likely to go out and spend the money 
because he does not have that much money. He has to go out and buy food 
or staples for the family, clothing; as opposed to somebody in the 
300,000 bracket who would probably put it in the bank because they do 
not need to spend it.
  So their theory, even their own ideology, they do not practice it. 
They do not practice what they preach.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will just tell a story about Margaret in 
Houston who makes between 8 and $26,000, a student with an 8-year-old 
son. And she wrote an article just a year ago when we were fighting 
this same battle last summer.
  She said it is simply a shame that she would be the one trying to 
make ends meet as a student, improving her life, raising an 8-year-old 
son, would not get the child tax credit. What is she to do with her 
child? How is she to pay her bills or to do as the gentleman said, to 
infuse the economy? They are simply left out, and we find that they are 
left out today.
  One of the things I wanted to raise, I respect very much the first 
amendment, but I know that you are familiar with the question that we 
always raise with the media and not highlighting the substitute 
amendment that we worked very hard to put together. The American people 
should know that we are here fighting on the floor of the House, that 
we had an initiative, the Democrats, and it worked. It was paid for. It 
did not leave 3 million people behind. It gave to those making between 
10,000 and $26,000; it put it to 2011 when we can possibly then see a 
better day, have the deficit decreased and be able to legitimately 
consider making it permanent. 2011 is a good and decent time frame.
  This is only 2004, but yet we had to rush to making it, if you will, 
permanent now and do the $228 billion in deficit, and it just does not 
make any sense. Let me just for a moment add, if I might, some of the 
missing elements. I want to, and I will be happy to yield back to the 
gentleman, but I also just want to leave, as we are on adjournment, I 
think there are a lot of things left undone, particularly as it relates 
to the need of a strategy for Iraq. I do not think any of us know what 
the strategy is for Iraq. We know that every day more and more body 
bags are coming home. We also realize, of course, that there is a need 
for peace and security in Iraq, but we would like to have a strategy 
from this administration. We have not heard one.
  We do not know whether we are going to be able to transition the 
government. We do not know what kind of security is in place. We do not 
know ultimately what is an exit strategy. It is just not functioning, 
and we have leadership in the Defense Department that we are concerned 
about, but I do want to mention items that I think are left undone.
  I am concerned, for example, about Sudan, and what comments are being 
made by this administration. I know that we had a resolution, but there 
is slaughter and massacre going on there on a regular basis. There are 
refugees from Sudan at the border in Chad. There is a breakdown. The 
United Nations is struggling.
  I think this administration needs to take the leadership in this 
area, primarily because none of us want to repeat the tragedy in 
Rwanda. It looks as though certainly we have cause to be wary, and I 
would like to make a very clear point to see some answers, not only 
from this administration but from this Congress.
  Then, of course, we have heard some good news, at least some 
representations of numbers out of Haiti; but I still believe that 
unless you embrace all of the political parties, unless you have a 
schedule for democratic elections, unless you investigate what happened 
with respect to President Aristide and his removal from the country, I 
think there is work left undone, and I think it is imperative that we 
begin to answer those kinds of questions on the international level.
  I know we are about to venture into the appropriations process, and I 
raise for the administration the question of how they are going to 
support their requests for this increased supplemental in light of what 
we have just done today with the $228 billion deficit and spending on 
tax cuts.
  In fact, I do not think there is a tax cut in this House that anyone 
has seen that they reject. At the same time there is such an enormous 
need. We have still not done anything about Leave No Child Behind. And 
the only reason I was adding this to the gentleman's discussion is 
because I think it is important on adjournment to realize that we are 
just full of work to be done and there is lack of cohesion and lack of 
agreement.
  So we are going to get ready to go into the appropriations process in 
which we are somewhat delayed, and really we are going to be, I think, 
on rocky ground. We passed a budget resolution that is very disturbing, 
and that we allegedly are operating, you said, that has large gaping 
holes in it. It is not able to provide for a lot of issues that we are 
concerned about. So I am just squarely saying, departure and 
adjournment but a lot of work to be done.
  The international world is looking for our leadership; there are a 
lot of problems that are percolating around the world. I would just 
offer to say that

[[Page 10747]]

I believe I am a big supporter of Mideast peace and I just believe in 
engagement. And I would like to see the United States more fully 
engaged than singular meetings that we have had with the 
administration. I want to see us with a team, working, because all of 
us are believers of the peace in that region, and I do not see that. So 
I consider that work left undone by this Congress and this 
administration.
  Mr. PALLONE. If I could just interrupt, I think the gentlewoman makes 
some very valid points, and I think it relates back to what we were 
talking about before. You can call it abuse of power. You can to call 
it arrogance, this arrogance that we see here in this House on the part 
of the Republican majority and the Bush administration which 
essentially says, my way or the highway. We are not really interested 
in your input. We do not want to hear what the Democrats have to say. 
We are not interested in whatever suggestions you have, we see playing 
out with regard to the Bush administration's foreign policy, which is 
essentially unilateral, the cowboy. We are not interested in other 
countries' views. They were not interested in other countries, views or 
the U.N., which is sort of a manifestation of all the other countries 
together because we want to do everything on our own.
  So that is why we went into Iraq without having our NATO allies or 
the major ones supportive or without having the U.N. support it because 
the idea is we do not need other people. We do not need help. That is 
why the effort, the gentleman mentions Haiti, was pretty much the same 
thing. We will unilaterally decide that it is time for Aristide to go, 
without really thinking about what the consequences might be. And the 
U.N. has suffered because we do not give any credence to it.
  We suggest that the U.N. is incompetent or that somehow they are not 
something that we favor, and so then we are forced to go it alone and 
not have the help of our allies. In the case of Iraq, it means that we 
end up mostly having our own soldiers fight the battles and our own 
resources being used. And then what are the consequences here? The 
consequences are that we go further and further into debt, and that is, 
of course, only multiplied by the fact that we do all these tax cuts 
that you and I have been talking about all evening. So we have the 
deficit situation. We do not have the money for domestic problems 
because we are spending all the money unilaterally in Iraq and other 
places, and we are cutting taxes at the same time, mostly for the 
wealthy.
  So given those circumstances, there is no money to pay for education 
programs or for health care or for housing or for all the other 
priorities that are important, particularly for people at a time when 
the middle-class person is hurting and they probably need some help 
from the Federal Government for some of these things.

                              {time}  2100

  This is all part of this arrogance, this abuse of power. I think it 
is domestic policy, as well as the foreign policy, and it does not seem 
to be getting any better.
  If you talk about Iraq, what countries want to help us now? The 
President says he wants to go to the U.N.; he wants other countries to 
help us, but the opposite is happening. The countries are leaving 
because of our arrogance and our unwillingness to get them involved, 
and our unwillingness to reach out and say we need your help. When does 
the President ever say, we need your help? I never hear him say that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You are absolutely right. The face that we have 
projected to the world needs a little bit of cleaning up, and so we 
need some articulated foreign policies that the world can understand.
  I heard debate when we were discussing the motion to recommit here on 
the defense authorization bill, a very fair motion to recommit.
  Just as an aside, this past week and the last couple of weeks, we 
denied the bill to have a substitute, the normal courtesies, and as I 
recall, the deans of this House who happen to be on our side of the 
aisle, have reflected and said they cannot remember when the Democrats 
were in the majority that denial of a substitute would be disallowed to 
the minority. It is certainly the rule of the majority, but not the 
tyranny of the majority, and so it is extremely disappointing.
  But I recall the debate on the motion to recommit which we should 
state again was simply to have a select committee, a commission, to 
really effectively look into this issue, because a lot of people think 
this is pointing to Iraq.
  No, this is pointing to international law, the Geneva Convention. 
This is saying to the world that when we sign and agree to a treaty, we 
really believe in it, because if the shoe is on the other foot, we are, 
if you will, darn sure not going to tolerate that kind of abuse of our 
prisoners of war.
  How concerned we were when we had and we still have prisoners of war 
there. We still have some MIAs and prisoners of war to a certain 
extent, people that are missing in action right now, but people that 
are also, we know, prisoners of war. We still have that going on, MIAs 
in Vietnam, but we have people who are missing in Iraq.
  The point is that you want to be sure that the convention is adhered 
to, and what I am saying is, there was a discussion here to reject it 
rather than doing it in a bipartisan way, because we are suggesting 
that the other people are worse than us, the other people are 
terrorists. And I respect the distinguished gentleman who offered 
opposition to the motion to recommit, but I believe that is wrong 
because we have an obligation to show the world that we are better than 
that and we adhere to the law.
  May I just say one thing? I want to mention again some very fine 
constituents in my district and the United Nations Foundation, because 
through Federal Express and local leadership in Houston, Mike and Lisa 
out of Memphis, we are going to get, through the United Nations 
Foundation, books that Houston students collected to send to the 
children of Afghanistan.
  And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) who was part of 
us working together. So I want to mention a colleague who was very 
helpful, working together on this very issue. But that is a positive, 
but what we were trying to do in that instance was to show the world a 
better face, or another face, and that is the face of charitableness 
and understanding and desire for democracy and educating children, that 
there is a better way and that what we do have in America is good.
  That is the difference with what I am seeing here; they are not 
understanding, that is, the majority, that this is not a tit for tat. 
This is not partisanship. This is attempting to govern, and it is all 
right to stand and be able to throw stones, but when we govern, we 
should be able to govern together.
  The world looks to us to govern. They do not really see Democrats and 
Republicans. They see Americans and say, what are you doing as 
Americans, as the American Congress, the American Government? That is 
what they are asking for.
  They are asking that in the Sudan. They are asking that in 
Afghanistan. They are asking that in Haiti and Iraq. They are asking 
that in the Mideast. They are asking what America is doing, so when you 
stand here and view your critique and criticisms as that very question: 
What is America doing?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlelady makes a good point.
  Again, you talked about the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq, in the 
prison, and the violation of the Geneva Convention, but again, I think 
it goes back to what I said before. If you really believe that you can 
act unilaterally and that everything you do is right and you do not 
want input from anybody else, be it here in the House from other party 
Members like Democrats or from other countries, then you start buying 
into this notion that somehow international treaties, which are not 
unilateral, but done with other countries, do not have to be adhered 
to. And if you

[[Page 10748]]

listen to some of the comments that have been made with respect to this 
administration, where actually arguments were being put forth by them, 
some of the people that were responsible for change in tactics with 
prisoners or interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq, you hear them say, 
well, somehow this is a little different, the notion that the 
terrorists do not come under the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan. But 
then somehow you lead from that to say, well, then, the Iraqis do not 
come under the Geneva Convention either.
  So you start to stretch. You say, okay, terrorists are not active 
combatants in Afghanistan, or because they are terrorists and not under 
any state, but then you move that to Iraq and say, well, maybe the same 
thing is true of the Iraqis, even though it is a very different 
situation because we invaded Iraq.
  Then you start to say, well, then, maybe you do not need the Geneva 
Convention, it does not apply to the situation. And that is the danger 
here; it is sort of unilateral philosophy arrogance, not willing to 
listen to others that gradually erodes the notion that you have treaty 
obligations or that you have to succumb to some sort of international 
agreement or international body like the U.N. And it is such a 
dangerous thing, it is really such a dangerous thing.
  I do not usually compliment him because I think that for the most 
part his conduct has not been good, but I remember there were some 
newspaper reports that when the Secretary of State Colin Powell heard 
that there were some suggestions that the Geneva Convention did not 
have to be adhered to, he was outraged. I think that was in part 
because he had, as a general and as someone who had been instructed in 
the norms of war, realized that you could not say that the Geneva 
Convention did not apply in this situation in Iraq.
  But I think some of the soldiers or some of the people in charge were 
convinced that somehow it did not apply; and that is the danger that we 
face. It is such a dangerous situation because once the norms of the 
Geneva Convention are not applied by us, then how can we expect anybody 
to apply them to us? The whole breakdown in any kind of legality during 
the war, I mean it is just an awful thing.
  I yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that you have 
absolutely, if you will, clarified again or made it understandable from 
what happens to us. And the Secretary of State, obviously, as a 
general, has served in that capacity, but more importantly, a combat 
officer, seen combat and knows what it is to be in combat and to rely 
upon the ability of the convention to set the standards for treatment 
for anyone who becomes a prisoner of war.
  That is why, if I may go back again to Iraq, why I think it is such a 
disservice of this House not to have an investigation to begin to reset 
the standards and have oversight over those who are carrying out 
orders.
  We know that General Miller, or Colonel Miller, I am not sure of the 
title, that used to be over Guantanamo Bay, with certain procedures 
that were questionable, then transferred over to Iraq. The question is, 
how do you figure that out? How do you determine that you either 
improve that or find the basis of those actions or the basis of those 
actions. Why do I not correct myself and say we should be changing 
those actions?
  So it warrants us understanding that this is not a question of who is 
in charge, but it is more a question of doing the right thing.
  That is what we are suggesting, that we are not doing the right thing 
here, and frankly, it does not do us well not to be doing the right 
thing. And, as well, we are being seen as a body that is not either 
conversant with the law or desirous of adhering to the law.
  You made a very good point earlier that I wanted to focus on. How 
interesting it is that we are now seeking the support and collaboration 
of the United Nations. I think we need to be more vigorous in seeking 
that support, but I wish we had had that support, really, way back in 
the fall of 2002. We might have had a much better success story.
  Again, as we approach Memorial Day, I want to be very clear and I 
know the distinguished gentlemen's commitment to the military, that we 
understand who is on the front lines. We understand the mourning 
families who will be remembering their loved ones, fresh in their 
minds, lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those who were lost in earlier 
wars, and we understand the sacrifice that they have made.
  We understand the wounded who are now in various hospitals or 
rehabilitation centers or those who are now home with their families 
mending. We know their lives have been altered forever.
  So I certainly stand here with my colleague to pay tribute to them as 
we leave for this Memorial Day work recess.
  This is not the question that we are debating tonight, because I hope 
that they fully appreciate our desire to honor them. The moment of 
silence today was more than appropriate and the honoring of Armed 
Services Day. I think that those who wear that uniform know full well 
that we are honoring them or they are honored more by the integrity of 
their service.
  So I hope that that is what is understood by the distinguished 
gentleman's remarks tonight, as I perceive them to be, and I am 
grateful that he has allowed me to join with him to hopefully set some 
kind of tone for when we return back that we are not enemies here in 
this place. We should be working together for the betterment of America 
and for the betterment of the world. We are not enemies.
  I am gratified to have been able to be part of the gentleman's 
discourse this evening and maybe we will come back here and get to work 
and establish a foreign policy and a health care policy and an energy 
policy that will be befitting of the Founding Fathers of this place.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add to the gentlewoman's 
comments because I think they are very appropriate for ending this 
special order tonight, and I thank the gentlewoman for being here.

                          ____________________