[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1617-H1623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAIRNESS TO MIGUEL ESTRADA AND TO ARMED FORCES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, it is great to be here. And I am always
so proud to have an opportunity to come down on the floor of the United
States Congress and have an opportunity to debate topics of the day,
and I do so with great respect to anybody who has the opposing view.
Madam Speaker, I notice my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) is here. Maybe he is going to join in. He is going to be
talking about aviators later on.
I do want to say a few comments on a number of topics. One of the
things I want to talk about this Miguel Estrada nomination is, I think,
it is ironic that here we are, we have the guy who has been rated was
one of the most highly qualified by the American lawyers, by the
American Bar Association. Here is a guy who graduated from Harvard
magna cum laude, editor of the Law Review. He has argued 15 cases
before the Supreme Court, and yet our Democrat colleagues and liberal
colleagues are so offended by his success that they are holding him up
in the face of war, troops overseas, national security, and economy
that is in the tank.
How absurd is it, Madam Speaker? I wanted to give you this. The
liberal Democrats over in the Senate have objected and we want to give
you some hours, 6 hours of debate was not enough. That was on February
6. So they went to 8 hours.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind Members to avoid
improper references to the Senate.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, liberal Democrats did not want to debate
it for 10 hours so they went to 12 hours. That was not enough. So the
next day on February 11 they went to 6 hours. It was not enough. They
went to 14, then 24 hours, then 44 hours, and then on the 12th 6 hours.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I am not allowed to say U.S. Senate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may refer to the existence of
the Senate, but may not characterize Senate action or inaction.
Mr. KINGSTON. So you have this other body and they have already spent
85 hours debating a guy who the American Bar Association has rated as
one of the most highly qualified. He has worked under the Clinton
administration. He has worked under, I think, even the Carter
administration. This guy came to America when he was 17 years old. He
was raised in Honduras, did not speak any English. He graduates from
Harvard. He is a distinguished lawyer by anybody's measure. And the
only thing the Democrats want to do is debate him. Bush wants to put in
his own team. We have a war going, but this is the number one issue now
for the liberal Democrats.
Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have got better things to do than stay up at night and watch C-
SPAN. But I was captivated. I watched the gentleman from the other body
debate this issue. The other body Democrats stood up and said, well, he
never answered the questions. The gentleman from Ohio who was not even
at the meeting, he was there for a few minutes and left, did submit
questions at the end, said he never answered the questions. The
Chairman of the Judiciary in the other body stood up and read every
single one of the questions that the Democrats asked for.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not refer to individual
Senators.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not think I did.
Anyway, someone over there asked for every question. And every
response that Mr. Estrada gave was presented. They were A-plus answers.
And now my colleagues on the other side, I just asked the gentleman, I
said, did you invite any outside people within this caucus to listen to
Mr. Estrada? Of course not. The answer is no.
The memo to the other body was written before the caucus meeting ever
took place.
We are watching the same thing as we did in the Clinton, what is the
word I am looking for?
Mr. KINGSTON. Investigation.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Investigation. We are watching them gang up. They are
being good little soldiers, supporters, the other body.
Every paper, The San Diego Union, The San Francisco Chronicle, The
Washington Post, The Washington Times editorializes against their
position. They have drawn a line in the sand against someone that may
be a little more conservative than they are.
Mr. KINGSTON. It is ridiculous, though, because as I understand it,
most Hispanic and Latino national organizations have endorsed Estrada.
And yet our friend from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) says, Well, his
big problem is he is not Hispanic enough.
Now this is from a guy who is raised in Honduras, but he is not
Hispanic enough for the liberals. As the gentleman also said, they do
not even know how to speak Spanish themselves but they are telling
somebody else that he is not Hispanic enough.
The reality is, this is a very strong guy but they cannot stand the
fact that there might be a minority group getting off the plantation.
And that is the reality of it. It is a sad, sick commentary.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is very sad.
Watching C-SPAN, I watch the other side in the other body point by
point come out and accuse Republicans. And every single point was
countered by the chairman.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the gentleman not to
characterize Senate action.
Mr. KINGSTON. I guess the problem though really is what is his crime?
The crime is he is Hispanic and in the liberal welfare support society
out there, if you are a minority group in America, you are supposed to
think and act in a certain way, and if you do not, by golly, look what
happens.
My friend, Clarence Thomas from Sandfly, Georgia, he went through the
same living hell and personal accusations and everything else because
he was an African American and did not believe in everything that he
was told he was supposed to believe in. His problem was he was an
independent thinker. And I guess Estrada is an independent thinker who
does not look to liberal institutions to tell him how he is supposed to
think and behave and that is what this is about.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think it is very telling that most of the other
Hispanic associations are endorsing this individual, but our House
caucus is opposing it. Why?
The gentleman over there a minute ago mentioned that memoranda was
not available. Well, again, the other body presented all of the facts
that none of the confidential memoranda, not once in the history of
confidential memoranda had ever been released. Well, the Democrats in
the other body came forward and said, well, here is a case in this and
here is a case where it was released in these individuals. Again, in
the other body's side they pointed out that none of this memoranda was
confidential. And so for my Democratic colleagues over here in their
partisan bid to support the other body, it is just wrong when the rest
of the world is saying you are wrong. At least let them vote.
And something else that the other body pointed out was that they
opposed at different times Hispanic candidates. That is fair. But at
least let it come to a vote. The two that they opposed are now sitting
on the Ninth Circuit Court in California because they allowed a vote.
What my colleagues are doing by filibustering is preventing totally a
vote on this issue which has never been done in the history of
Congress.
Mr. KINGSTON. And I agree with the gentleman. By golly, vote yes,
vote no, but have the guts enough to vote. Do not hide behind
parliamentary procedures.
One of the charges against Mr. Estrada is that he does not have
judicial experience, and yet I believe there
[[Page H1618]]
are eight judges on this court, and 5 of them did not have it. And
incidentally, many of those came through some of these same liberals
who are opposing him now and they voted to support these folks. On the
Supreme Court, we have Byron Wright, and we have the Chief Justice
Rehnquist, who did not have judicial experience.
But we know how it is, if you oppose something you can come up with
any reason you want.
I wanted to jump into something because I think it is very important
for the President, whoever it is, to be able to get his own team in
place and try to get some good people on the judicial benches, but we
have a war going on. Very serious issues in front of us.
The gentleman here is a former top gun. He was the inspiration for
the movie Top Gun. He has been out there on the frontline. He is a
great advocate for the military.
I am wearing, I do not know if the gentleman can see it from where he
is standing, a Third Infantry Division patch which was given to me by
the wives who have been left behind in Hinesville, in Savannah and
coastal Georgia.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Are these Army guys? I am a Navy guy.
Mr. KINGSTON. I know the gentleman is a Navy guy, but right now there
is just not that much water in Iraq.
We have from Fort Stewart alone, nearly 18,000 troops who are
deployed. Lots of mothers, some fathers, and lots of children left
behind while these troops are gone. We in the House are passing an
important tax relief bill tomorrow to give them a little breathing
room, and I wanted to ask the gentleman as a guy who has been out
there, who had to leave behind, this bill that we are going to pass
gives them some capital gains tax relief, gives them a death gratuity
tax relief, some dependent care tax relief.
Basically it gives the soldiers just a little more wiggle room and a
few more tax benefits while they are out there fighting for our
freedom. And I do not really want to ask the gentleman about the
technical part of the tax bill which, of course, he is welcome to speak
on; but as a man in uniform, tell me what this means to you out there
on the front line? Is this important at all or does this send a signal?
What is your feeling?
{time} 1630
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is important when a
person is gone, either men or women, from their families, knowing that
their families are taken care of is very, very important; knowing that
the financial burdens are taken care of; that their children are able
to go to school and get a good education or, in the case something I
oppose what the President is doing is reducing impact aid, which I
think is wrong, and we are going to rectify that in this body.
But they want to know that everything is okay back home. I cannot
tell my colleague how stressful it is for a sailor on an aircraft
carrier to learn that his wife has gone into indebtedness or has
problems with the children; and he cannot be there to take care of
them, and tax relief for families, especially in the military that are
forced to uproot every 2 years, that cannot make an investment, that
have to take their children out of schools and put them into a new
school or the spouse cannot get a job because an employer will not hire
her if she is only there for a short time. This kind of tax relief
helps put money in their pockets to resolve some of these issues.
Mr. KINGSTON. So there is a practical side to it and a moral side. It
is a pat on the back saying we cannot be there.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And a heartfelt side.
Mr. KINGSTON. But we really appreciate what they are doing.
I think it is so important for these wives and the families in my
area, and I know in California that the gentleman has lots who are
deployed, same thing.
Mr. Speaker, switching gears slightly, I always pick up the paper
here, and one would think that it is the United States and Tony Blair,
not the United States and Great Britain, but just Tony Blair, oh, and
Jack Straw; but one would think it is just a couple of us out there
fighting Saddam Hussein.
Here is a list of countries: Albania, Angola, Australia, Bahrain,
Britain, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Guinea, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen
who have all expressed support of the Bush policies towards Iraq.
Why is that not in the paper? And in my colleague's opinion, is it
important for us to wait out the U.N.? I think we are on number 17 in
terms of resolutions now. Keep in mind, the very first resolution going
back to April 1991 called for disarmament within 90 days; and it did
not say, and we are having to come prove the case against you, it says
you have got to show us that you have disarmed. What is the gentleman's
view?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, if my colleague takes a look at the number of
people at coalitions that are supporting the President, it is
overwhelming. I think we also need to realize that many of the Middle
East nations that are actually helping us, that helped us catch KSM
just this week, they are helping us: Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.
These countries have been sterling.
Yes, there is an issue with bases, but remember that these nations
live at the back door of Saddam Hussein. Let us say that we did not go
into Iraq and allowed Saddam Hussein to persevere once again. Can the
gentleman imagine the risk that that puts these Arab nations in by
coming out ahead of time? And I will tell my colleague that these
nations will be with us when we go into Iraq, either to disarm Saddam
Hussein or he disarms himself.
Two real quick issues I think are important and I thank the gentleman
for yielding. One critic says that let us look at the cost that it
would cost. 9-11 cost New York $200 billion, another $83 billion in
lost revenue while we were rebuilding New York. Look across the Nation.
Look at the services. Look at the travel industry. Look at the airline
industry. Look at the hotels and think about the devastation of our
economy and how that hurt. So the cost of going in there is going to be
far less than when al Qaeda hits the United States again.
The second complaint they say, well, look at the innocent Iraqis that
are going to be hurt. First of all, we will not target innocent Iraqis.
There will be collateral damage, as in any conflict; but they will not
be targeted, and I would go back from the time that Saddam Hussein was
the XO, the executive officer per se, the president stepped down. He
called an emergency session of his Congress. He had a witness stand up
at a mike like this one and call off 250 names. They were marched out
and shot that day. Think of the thousands of Kurds that he has killed.
Think of the Shiites that he has killed and his own people that will be
killed if we do not go in there.
We will hurt less people in this conflict than Saddam Hussein will in
the future. We are not going in there to annex Iraq. Look at
Afghanistan, what we have done in there. We did not go in to invade it.
We went in to free the people, and this is what we are going into Iraq
for.
Mr. KINGSTON. That is interesting that the gentleman raises that
point. Having been to Afghanistan, I went over there a year ago and met
with Mr. Karzai and folks from the Northern Alliance who were starting
to form this new government. If there was ever a country that would
have welcomed American colonization, it would have been Afghanistan. If
that is what we were after, we could have done that; and we would not
have to wait until this time.
I am glad the gentleman mentioned, though, the hatred and the madness
of Saddam Hussein. I am an Episcopalian, and every Sunday my minister
Bart Robertson gives an admonishment to us, Make no peace with
oppression. Why Americans would want to make peace with oppression is
beyond me, but I wanted to read some things to the gentleman that he
has kind of already mentioned.
Between 1983 and 1988, Saddam Hussein murdered more than 30,000 Iraqi
citizens with mustard gas and nerve agents. Human rights organizations
have continually received reports from women who say that rape is
routinely
[[Page H1619]]
used by Iraqi officials for the purposes of torture, intimidation, and
blackmail.
In 2000, Iraqi authorities introduced tongue amputation as punishment
for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International estimates that Iraq has
between 70- and 150,000 people who are unaccounted for. That is the
most of any nation in the entire world.
The mass executions are a choice of Saddam Hussein. Since 1997, it is
estimated that 3,000 people have been killed in Saddam Hussein's
various cleansing methods. In February 1998, 400 prisoners were
executed. Two months later, 100 detainees in another prison were buried
alive in a pit; and since September 11, Saddam Hussein has expelled six
U.N. humanitarian relief workers without explanation.
That is the kind of guy we are dealing with; and what is really sad,
if France and Germany and the blame-America-first crowd here win and
America backs down because Saddam Hussein has been perceived as backing
us down, none of us will be safe from terrorism.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the people
to understand France. In France the conservative party is in the
minority. The Socialists took over. They have joined with the Communist
Party to have a majority. So the French parliament is a Socialist-
Communist coalition. That is like having a Socialist on the other side
here stand up and offer our position nationally.
Secondly, Chirac wants the United States out of NATO. He wants to be
the leading power in Europe; and to do that, he puts down NATO and
wants the United States out of there and builds up the EU. That is
critical.
Thirdly, the French have been the whoremongers of the weapons market
around the world. When I trained at Navy Fighters Weapons School, Top
Gun, every nation we potentially stood to fight was carrying Matra
Magic 550s and French missiles. We would have had to fight those, and
if my colleague takes a look at what the French are doing with Iraq
economically, I think they are afraid that we are going to find out
exactly that they are supplying Iraq with chemicals, with weapons, with
different things.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman from California, in
California, they have some very good wines, and in Georgia we have
Chateau Elan, which is also a good wine, and of course, there are a lot
of wines.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I took the Grey Poupon out of my
cupboard, and I do not think, what is the vodka that they have? Not
Absolute. But there is a vodka. Anyway, I have asked our people to do
away with it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, the gentleman might want to look it up on the
Internet. At fromage, which is the French word for cheese, F-R-O-M-A-G-
E, .com, it is a French cheese distributor, and they are down 15
percent. I recommend to everybody, look up fromage.com, see what their
products are and continue the boycott.
I think we should also boycott the Paris air show. I think we should
discontinue drinking their wine and champagnes and anything else; and,
hey, I am not even anti-French.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is called Grey Goose vodka.
Would the gentleman yield for one other point on that?
Mr. KINGSTON. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many of the people say, well, it is a fight for oil,
blood for oil. I have recommended to the President that after Saddam
Hussein is removed and we have a democratic regime in Iraq, let the
Iraqi people keep the oil. Let them have 100 percent control; but for
those nations that helped liberate it, let them for a time sell those
nations oil at a reduced price, not to make a profit but just to help
the economy so it is not affected like Turkey and the United States and
the coalition. But I want to tell my colleague, there is going to be a
penalty for France, Germany, and Russia. We will still have diplomatic
relations. We will still try to have good relations with them, but
those nations that choose not to join in liberating Iraq, I personally
believe there ought to be some dire consequences.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I agree and I want to get off France for a
minute. France is looking after their own national interests.
Let us talk about oil. That is the country that is making this a war
over oil because they are the one with all the sweetheart deals with
Iraq for oil supply; but look at our items that we buy that are French,
and if we choose so, do not eat them.
Let us talk about Germany. My colleague and I do a lot of work for
our military, and in my district we have five military installations.
Big fear in Georgia right now, 13 total, is BRAC, base realignment and
closure commissions. Do we need a military base in Germany with
countries like Bulgaria and the emerging, less affluent countries that
are strategically better located anyhow? But they are dying for our
business because let me say this. If Moody Air Force Base or Fort
Stewart or Robbins get on the BRAC list, people in Georgia are going to
be nonstop scurrying around trying to get them off the BRAC list as
they did last time, as will happen all over the world, all over the
country; but meanwhile, we have got bases in Germany. If that is not
100 percent America's interests, then maybe we ought to move those
bases. What does my colleague think?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the gentleman is I
would defer to the Pentagon. There are certain bases around the world
that we need to maintain, not just for their security but for our own
security as well. If we have to have launching pads for another
conflict sometime, we may need those bases; and I would defer those
determinations to the Pentagon and to a study that says what do we
actually need. But if we do not need it and we are there at the cost of
the American taxpayers and not supporting the United States' best
interests, then I would go along with the gentleman on it.
Can I make one other point about when the gentleman, the nerve gas
and mustard gas? When Saddam Hussein used nerve and mustard gas against
these people, it was not just the 30,000 that were killed. There are 10
times that many that have permanent defects. Nerve gas, there are
thousands of people, Kurds and Shiites that cannot even walk today
because nerve gas affects not only their internal systems, but their
children and their children's children will be affected because it
affects the chromosomes and the genetic make-up.
So we are not looking at just a small group. We are looking for
centuries that these people are going to be affected by the nerve gas
that Saddam Hussein released on them.
{time} 1645
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for bringing that out, and I also
wanted to say that it is important for us, for these soldiers, not just
to pass the tax relief for them personally as a soldier in the field. I
mean, it is, of course, very important and paramount that we support
the war effort, but the other thing we can do for the soldiers is to
improve the economy domestically. I am proud that this administration,
while fighting the war on the international and domestic front in terms
of homeland security, are also trying to turn the economy around and
address so many of the critical issues in our economy.
President Bush has proposed a tax bill, which we will be voting on
very soon in the House, that reduces some of the tax rates. Now, that
has already been approved by this House. It is just that it phases in
and phases out in 10 years. We are saying if it was good enough for
last year's election purposes, from the liberal standpoint, then let us
go ahead and put them on the books permanently.
The Bush plan also stops the double taxation on savings. As the
gentleman knows, if you buy a stock and you are paid a dividend from
that stock, you pay taxes on it. The corporation has already paid
taxes, so you are being taxed twice on your savings. This tax bill
stops that. It also gives small businesses an expensing item so that
they can buy new equipment and write off about $75,000 of it. Seventy
percent of the jobs in America come from small businesses. We have to
worry about the small businesses, the small Main Street folks, and this
bill does address that.
[[Page H1620]]
It also helps those who are unemployed, like my paper mill workers
down in Camden County, Georgia, who work for the Durango Paper Mill
that closed up. This will give them some unemployment help, but it will
also help them create a personal employment account, and that gives
them some discretionary money for some of their short-term expenses
until they get a job. And once they get a job, they get to pocket the
difference. That helps them move down the road. And the ultimate idea
also is that it would shorten some of the time period people actually
need unemployment. It gives everybody incentive. It is a win-win.
I am excited about this tax plan because I think it is so important,
along with ending this conflict in Iraq. It is very important for us to
stimulate the economy. And to show the kind of money it would put on
the streets, 92 million taxpayers would get $1,083. And this is
basically immediately. It has what Steven Friedman, one of the economic
advisers to President Bush, calls a near-term lift, an immediate near-
term lift. This is not something that is going to happen down the road,
but this will have a very positive effect on the economy and job
creation. Thirty-four million families would get $1,473. Six million
single mothers would get $541, and 13 million seniors $1,384. That is
money in their pocket this year, right now.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We hear over and over again from the other side that
any tax, and I mean no matter what tax relief we have brought up in the
12 years I have been here, the other side talks about it being tax
relief for the rich. From $5,000 to $30,000, you get a 20 percent tax
relief. Twenty percent. If you earn above $200,000, you only get 11
percent tax relief. So the percentage of who gains the most out of it
goes with the lower income. But my colleagues will say it is only for
the rich. Why? Mathematically, if you pay $1,000 in taxes, you are not
going to get as much money back as someone who pays $10,000 in taxes.
You will get more money back, but you have not put that money in there
in the first place.
My colleagues like to do that so that their base will think, oh,
Republicans are only doing it for the rich. It is just not true.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, and it really is so fundamental. We have all
heard the old expression, why do you rob banks? Because that is where
the money is. Why do the people who pay the taxes get tax relief?
Because they are the ones paying taxes. It is not that hard.
These are some numbers according to the IRS. The top 1 percent of all
income taxpayers pay nearly 37 percent of all taxes. That is the top 1
percent. The top 5 percent pay 56 percent of all taxes, and the top 10
percent pay 67 percent of all income taxes. Then the top 50 percent pay
96 percent. So how are you going to have tax relief without these folks
benefiting is beyond me. But then again, I do not subscribe to the
fuzzy math some of them had in the last 8 years of the Clinton
administration. It is hard to follow these things.
I ran the numbers though as a Georgia representative as to who would
these folks be. Well, listen to this: 860,000 Georgians will get some
form of tax relief. And 60 percent of those who will benefit from
stopping the double taxation on savings make less than $75,000 a year.
Eighty percent of Georgia taxpayers, that is 4 out of 5, 80 percent of
them earn less than $50,000 and virtually all of them will get some
form of tax relief from this plan.
So I am comfortable. When somebody says 80 percent of the taxpayers
in Georgia will get some tax relief, I am comfortable. But this is
important because I want my families to have that $1,400 in their
pocket because they are going to be able to buy more clothes, more
shoes, more bookbags, a tutor for a kid, new automobile tires, or
whatever. They are not going to be able to go on a junket to the
Bahamas, but what is really more important than this is jobs. And this
will create jobs for my laid-off paper mill workers down in Camden
County; for my folks up in Hinesville, who, because of all the troops
being gone, they have had to close up their restaurants and their CD
stores. This is a jobs package.
There is nothing more important we can do for those in the military
than if we can say, listen, if you decide not to stay in the military,
we have a job for you. And if you want, those jobs are available sooner
than later. And that is why I am excited about it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Another important point is that people think, well, I
will be getting money back. Not so. You just do not have to send it to
Washington, D.C. in the first place.
My colleagues on the other side, many of them, believe that
Washington can do the job better. Unfortunately, if you look at every
department, including the Department of Defense, the Department of
Education, INS, all the different departments, there is fraud, waste
and abuse. For example, food stamps had over 50 percent in fraud,
waste, and abuse.
By not taxing individuals, they never send it here to Washington in
the first place. That money stays in their pocket to pay for schools,
or they can invest it, say in an education IRA. Say the day you know
your child is going to be born, you set aside $2,000 to $4,000 in an
education IRA, by the time that child is 16 years of age, if it was
$2,000, you might think, well, that is only $32,000. No, because it is
compounded, you can use that money for tutoring or for education, or if
you have a child who qualifies under the individuals with Disabilities
Act, you can use it for special education.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this, too. I am a father of four, and I
believe the gentleman has three children.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Three children; two daughters and my son was adopted.
Mr. KINGSTON. And I know that the gentleman's daughter had a real
high SAT score.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Sixteen hundred.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, we need to be sure we get that in the
Record; that she inherited her mother's brains.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Dr. Nancy Cunningham is the Chief of Staff for the
Assistant Secretary of Education. She has two masters and she is
bilingual in Spanish. So there is no doubt where she got the 1600 from.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me congratulate the gentleman. But as a middle
class guy raising my kids, you fight the day-to-day battles; are they
studying their math, are they going to play baseball this spring, are
they going to get some game time on one of these teams where the coach
only plays his son. So you have these issues with raising kids. But
just about every parent I know, lurking in the background every week,
every day, is what am I going to do about college? What am I going to
do about college?
My daughter Betsy is at the University of Colorado. Out-of-State
tuition is about $30,000 a year. And let me say this, if the gentleman
comes back to visit me in Savannah, Georgia, I am growing to drive you
around in my 1993 Pontiac with 200,000 miles on it. There are no
new cars in sight for the Kingston family. And that is pretty doggone
typical. These education IRAs are a significant step for the middle
class. The parents who know they may or may not have college educations
themselves, they know their children are going to be better off and
have more job opportunities if they get a college education.
So the 529 plans, the Coverdell Savings Plan, the educational IRAs,
all these terms which are kind of confusing if you are not a
stockbroker or banker or financial type, the reality is basically they
are just savings plans to make sure that your son or daughter has an
opportunity for that college education. And that is something worth
fighting for, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. And I do not
understand why the liberals are trying to tear down these tools.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, the gentleman's business people and his workers
in Georgia are just like in California.
One of our colleagues at the whip meeting pointed out that the tax
laws against business are the worst of all the industrialized nations.
The capital gains is the highest of industrialized nations. No other
nation has double taxation. Just the United States. And what that does
is it makes us not as competitive. We hear about cheap labor a lot, but
the labor that we have is taxed so high that the cost of goods makes us
not be in the market overseas. So I would like to see capital gains go
to zero. I would like to see the double taxation go away.
One of my friends right here tonight, he was looking for an apartment
where
[[Page H1621]]
I live, and a lady had a single room apartment for sale. She decided
not to sell it to our colleague because after she looked, the capital
gains she is going to have to pay on selling that are going to far
exceed any benefit that she would get. So it also ties up capital and
revenue.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I am glad the gentleman brought that up because
it is amazing how overtaxed our country is. I have a chart that is a
little difficult to follow, but what it basically says is that the tax
rate remains historically high as a percentage of our gross domestic
product. On the average, what it has been is about 18 percent, but
right now it is sitting about 22 percent.
So when people say, oh, taxes are about where they need to be. Well,
they are higher than they were in 1995. They are higher than they were
in 1980. They are higher than they were in the 1960s.
The gentleman and I have been here long enough. We are on the
Committee on Appropriations. We do a lot of the spending bills. I have
come to the conclusion that my folks back home in Georgia can spend
their money better than 435 people up here in Washington, D.C., and so
if we do not take their taxes, we are not going to spend it
frivolously.
I wanted to, though, also talk to the gentleman about a spending
issue that ties into part of our agenda. We started out saying, well,
the Senate, our other body, are spending time on judicial nominees who
are well qualified and they do not want to approve them, for political
reasons, but we are moving on with an agenda on tax relief and
supporting our soldiers and also frivolous medical liability.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The Chair would remind
Members that any characterization of the Senate is against the rules of
the House.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the Speaker.
I want to discuss with the gentleman now, Mr. Speaker, this medical
liability issue. And let me say up front that if I am in trouble, I
want a lawyer. I want a lawyer on my side. So this really is not aimed
at or taking shots at the lawyers. What this is saying is our system
has a problem.
In Las Vegas, 30 obstetricians have closed their practice in recent
months, leaving the city with 85 obstetricians to deliver 23,000 babies
a year because of their malpractice insurance. That is according to the
Las Vegas Review Journal, August 29, 2002.
In West Virginia, the parents of a 6-year-old boy were forced to
drive 3\1/2\ hours to Cincinnati, Ohio, to find a specialist who could
remove the pin that the boy had accidentally lodged in his windpipe.
And that is from WSAZ-TV in Charleston, West Virginia, September 19,
2002.
Here is something from the South Florida Sun Sentinel, November 4,
2002. Women are facing waiting lists of 4 months before being able to
get an appointment for mammograms because at least six mammography
centers in South Florida have stopped offering this procedure as a
result of increased medical liability insurance premiums.
And then here is one more from the New Jersey Hospital Association,
January 28, 2003. In New Jersey, one out of every four hospitals, or 27
percent, has been forced to increase payments to staff emergency
departments because physicians are reluctant to provide care in medical
malpractice crisis stories because they have greater liability
exposure.
The examples go on and on and on. And before I yield to the gentleman
from California once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to show him a chart. I
know this will not be picked up by the television, but it lists States
that are having medical malpractice problems: New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and Arizona.
{time} 1700
States that are not having frivolous medical liability problems
include Colorado, New Mexico, and the gentleman's own State,
California.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the law that we are going to debate on
tort reform is based on California law which has been very successful.
California has been more successful than the other States.
What it does is it protects. It will allow, if we do this nationally,
$60 billion to go into our health care centers instead of going to
trial lawyers. People will still be represented and protected, but it
will allow that money to go into our health care centers.
Another example, I sit on the D.C. subcommittee. Thanks to a Member
on the other side, on the D.C. subcommittee we capped trial lawyers'
fees for IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Act. In 2 years we saved
$12 million. $12 million, instead of going to trial lawyers, goes to
children with disabilities.
Mr. KINGSTON. Why do children with disabilities have trial lawyers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Individuals with Disabilities Act
has done a lot of good. Parents think that they are going to have a
homecoming queen or a fullback, and all of a sudden parents have a
child with disabilities. Many parents do not know how to handle that.
In many places, the child would be denied an education at school. That
is wrong.
What has happened is cottage organizations, anytime there is money,
trial lawyer cottage organizations will bring activists in and demand
20 things instead of what they really are accredited for under an IEP,
which is where they designate what that child's disability is and what
kind of care that they need. The lawyers come in and demand, and we
have cases where ambulance service has to bring the child to school;
they have to have a full-time nurse. The average is about $5,000 per
child nationwide per year. We have some cases where that exceeds
$100,000 for one child.
The bill that I am talking about caps the trial lawyers' fees so that
the money stays in the education system to help those children instead
of trial lawyers, but at the same time allows every child to be
represented by a lawyer, and represented if they feel that they are
being abused by the school system.
Allen Burson, San Diego city schools, who was President Clinton's
head guy under Border, is now the superintendent of schools; and he
said this is his number one issue in taking money away from schools. We
are losing good teachers. My sister-in-law heads up the Individuals
With Disabilities Act for San Diego city schools. They are losing good
teachers, teachers that just want to teach children; but the trial
lawyers get them into court and just beat the heck out of them, and we
are losing those good teachers.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to ask the gentleman, and I see that we have
been joined by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), did
California run out of lawyers when you stopped the frivolous lawsuits?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just like the rest of the country, there is an
excess. As a matter of fact, I would just end it at that. There is an
excess number of lawyers within the State of California. If we look at
representation in our court system across the country, there is an
excess. This law has not prevented people from being represented in
California. Instead, it gives people a fair day in court, but yet it
limits the extravagant and saves money for the health care system. So
with that $60 billion, and that is per year, we could take care of
every uninsured person within the United States.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, again, this is not about lawyers; but it
is about access, and it is about doctors.
I want to read a few more statistics from various papers. This is
from the Business Journal of Portland, January 10, 2003. In three of
Oregon's more rural counties, John Day, Hermiston, and Roseburg,
families have either lost all access to obstetric care or their
services have been drastically reduced.
Here is something from Amarillo-Globe News, October 30, 2002.
According to a Texas Medical Association poll of Panhandle doctors, 61
percent have plans to retire early, and 83 percent said they use
defensive tactics in practicing medicine because of fear of being sued.
And then in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 6, 2003, in South
Texas a pregnant woman was forced to drive 80 miles to a San Antonio
doctor and hospital because her family doctor in her more rural
hometown had recently stopped delivering babies because of malpractice
concerns.
[[Page H1622]]
It is something that I am glad this House is looking at. We need a
balanced bill. People certainly have the right to defend themselves.
They need access to the courtroom, but the courtroom should not stifle
access to the emergency room.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) has joined us now.
And we have been talking about taxes, Iraq and jobs; and we started out
talking about the nomination of President Bush of Miguel Estrada to the
D.C. District Court. I had cited the gentleman from Florida in saying
he was accused of not being Hispanic enough, and yet here is a guy who
has graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, Columbia University,
Harvard Law Review. He has practiced before the Supreme Court 15 times,
he has worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, came from
Honduras when he was 17 years old, but for some reason there are those
in the House and the Senate who do not like him.
In fact, did I hear a Member say earlier that the House Latino
Conference, did they take a position on this guy?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is a question that I wanted to ask.
Mr. KINGSTON. Nationally Hispanic and Latino groups overwhelmingly
have supported Miguel Estrada.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I asked my colleague that spoke earlier, I said, In
the caucus meeting, did you invite anybody else? They said, No, it was
just the caucus.
I asked, Did you invite anyone from outside so when you claim he did
not answer questions, that it was not a fix, that the memo to the other
body was not written before the conclusion of the caucus meeting? The
reason for that is I heard all of the questions asked to Mr. Estrada. I
missed a lot of sleep, and I also read the answers, and I heard the
claims that he did not answer the questions on the other side. Every
question was an A-plus answer, and the newspapers have editorialized
about that.
I wondered about the claims of the Hispanic Caucus in the House where
they had a meeting, had no outside intervention. Was the gentleman from
Florida ever asked to participate? Because they said the Republican
Hispanics chose not to go on the Hispanic Caucus. Were you ever asked
to sit in on the meeting where the questions were asked?
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, I was not. But I think there
are some facts that need to be brought out.
Number one is, as the gentleman said, the majority of the Hispanics
in this country are excited about Miguel Estrada being on this Federal
court. He would be the first Hispanic ever to serve on that court. But
I can tell Members as excited Hispanics are in this country, everybody
who loves diversity is excited because this is not just a Hispanic
issue. We are seeing an attitude of outrage by the Hispanic communities
and others when people use race as a reason to disqualify Mr. Estrada,
and we have heard it on the floor of this House where Members say he is
not Hispanic enough. What is he, three-fifths Hispanic? I thought those
days were over when people were judged by their race. I thought the day
of judging people by if they are too much of one thing, too little of
another, I thought those days are over.
Personally, it is offensive when people try to use race to disqualify
this brilliant young lawyer, a person who got here when he was 17 years
old, barely speaking English, worked hard, studied hard, graduated with
honors from Columbia University and then Harvard and worked in the
Solicitor General's office under two Presidents, both Democrat and
Republican Presidents. People who have worked with him say he is of the
highest caliber, and yet all of these sad excuses have been used to try
to derail him.
There are people who said a couple of years ago that they would fight
against a filibuster, and now they are leading the filibuster. How is
that possible? Were they misleading the American people when they said
that then, or are they not being truthful now? It is really offensive.
It is very offensive. I can tell Members also that here in this House
the Hispanic Conference is wholeheartedly, enthusiastically supporting
Miguel Estrada, not because he is Hispanic, but because he is highly
qualified.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Didn't the ABA give him a high rating?
Mr. KINGSTON. Yes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. People have said that should be the
threshold issue. Those same people that have said that is the threshold
issue, and now they are saying that it does not matter with Mr.
Estrada. What is it? It is not because he has not answered questions.
He has answered five times more questions than the previous two people
on that court combined. It is because of all of these other excuses. It
seems, sadly enough, that we have heard recently the real reason: race.
They do not want him because of his race.
Let me tell Members, I have to be very clear, I am not supporting Mr.
Estrada because of his race, because he is Hispanic. No, I am
supporting him because of his qualifications, because of his talent and
experience. But it is offensive that because of his race, some people
are trying to avoid him getting there.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman a personal
question. If it was the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart)
instead of Mr. Estrada, and the gentleman had all of his
qualifications, do you think that they would let you through based on
what you are saying?
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is funny that some of the people
who have questioned whether he is Hispanic enough, these are people
who, like me, are born here. There are people who are born here that
say Mr. Estrada cannot be a judge because he is not Hispanic enough.
Mr. Estrada got here when he was 17, so it is laughable. What is
offensive is not who is saying it, but what.
Mr. Speaker, race should never be a factor to disqualify a human
being to reach a position that he or she is qualified for. On this
floor we have heard it once again. They say the reason that Mr. Estrada
should not be on that bench is because of race. That is highly
objectionable; and it is insulting, degrading to this institution, and
degrading to the United States of America.
{time} 1715
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not criticize my colleagues. It is
their right to oppose somebody. But I also see what happened on C-SPAN.
Then I look at some of the same issues that my colleagues are here
bringing up, and they were false. I would think it would be more
legitimate if a question was asked in the Hispanic Caucus, that the
question be read and Mr. Estrada's answer just as it was in the other
body. And that would be fair. And then let people make a decision. But
to have a kangaroo court meet, in my opinion, with a decision already
made before the court took place is wrong. To not allow anyone else
within that room except for that limited group of people to see if it
was fair is wrong.
Mr. KINGSTON. Last year when a different party was in charge of the
other body, we passed lots of legislation that died, lots of
legislation that was not allowed to come out on the floor for a vote.
It seems that those same folks who lost the majority because of their
inability to make decisions are at it again and it is absurd. Hey, vote
the guy down. Have the guts.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The Chair has to remind
the body one more time that Members can make factual references to the
Senate but anything that characterizes action or inaction in any way is
out of order.
Mr. KINGSTON. I believe that we all are elected, be it a House or a
Senate Member, or even a State representative back home, a county
commissioner or a mayor, you are elected to vote, to take a position
and not play parliamentary games, which is what has been going on.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We rejoiced when the Democrats elected their
leadership because we knew how far left it was. This is just a good
example.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I just may add, though, also, that
there are so many important issues that this country is facing, that
this House and our friends across the rotunda, in the other Chamber,
are facing. The fact that there is a filibuster going on, not only is
it damaging to this brilliant young attorney who is experienced,
talented and of unbelievable
[[Page H1623]]
integrity, but there are a lot of other issues. The gentleman was
mentioning the economy recently. I am concerned about the economy. I am
concerned that we need to do something and do it quick to make sure
that we have economic growth in this economy. That is why I support the
President's proposals, because I think there are two choices: Either
you do nothing and hope for the best or you do what the President is
suggesting, which is make sure that we incentivize job creation. But
the problem is that nothing is getting done over there because there is
a small group of people who just refuses to let anything happen because
they are going to filibuster on Miguel Estrada. That is unbelievable.
You are absolutely right, sir, where you just said, that is the same
group that did not get anything passed for the last couple of years and
now in the minority they are even going to the extreme of procedural
maneuvers to avoid votes because they do not have the votes, but they
are going through procedural maneuvers to avoid even a vote. It is
horrible because Miguel Estrada deserves a vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has to remind Members one more
time that any kind of characterization of the other body is not in
order.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Can I ask the Chair a question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. When we are talking about something that is done in
the other body, it is very, very difficult to talk about and compare
without mentioning the other body, to compare what they are doing in
relation to this body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands the difficulty, but
those are indeed the House rules.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We will try to be cognizant of that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. KINGSTON. If I may ask the Speaker, you can make a factual
statement about the other body; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is correct.
Members can make certain factual statements about the Senate or its
actions, but cannot in any way characterize its action or inaction or
the Senate or its Members.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, also, how much time do we have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has about 30 seconds.
Mr. KINGSTON. I certainly appreciate the Speaker's leadership and
patience. Does either the gentleman from Florida or the gentleman from
California have any closing remarks?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would ask the Chair again, for example, is it okay,
a fact, that then the majority leader of the Senate stopped the flag
amendment from coming forward in the other body. Would that be
appropriate? That is a fact.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rules forbid such a characterization.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You are correct. Action was not taken by the majority
leader at that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The fact that action was not taken might be
stated without characterization.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for his time.
____________________