[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 4, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4963-H4968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX RELIEF BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is
recognized for half the time remaining before midnight as the designee
of the majority leader.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have to say the Democrats evidently are
fired up tonight. They are feeling good. They think they have some
rhetorical traction here. And it is all rhetoric when you listen to the
Democrats, including the last Member, who said our majority leader was
playing golf today, which was absolutely not the case. And I resent the
fact that somebody would be saying a Member of Congress was out goofing
off today, particularly when it is a member who works about an 80 or 90
hour workweek on average.
It is just silly, though, Mr. Speaker. The Democrat party had an
opportunity to take three million low-income workers off the tax rolls
2 weeks ago, and nearly every one of them voted against that. I want to
repeat that. The Democrats had an opportunity to take three million
low-income workers off the tax rolls and they voted against doing it.
Now, in typical fashion, the battle has been fought, the soldiers have
kind of gone home, and they are wishing to reinvent the history and
say, well, you all should have done this, you should have done that.
But where were they at the time? This proposal was out there and they
did not do it.
But just keep in mind, only in Washington do you give a rebate to
somebody who has not paid into a system. The reality is, in the real
world, you get a rebate when you have paid something in. The Democrats
are simply back on their mantra of the Democrat party: Expanding
welfare. They should not be talking about tax refunds, they should be
talking about welfare expansion.
And maybe the welfare bill needs to be looked at again. It has been
reauthorized. We know that under the Democrat leadership there were 14
million people on welfare. Today there are five million. That is a drop
of nine million people off welfare under Republican leadership. Welfare
reform, which all the Democrats voted against, has been a great
success, but we do not get that kind of real discussion with them. Now
they want to expand welfare. Maybe if their idea is a good one they
should come out with a new welfare expansion bill so we can talk about
it.
Here we have under our bill a family of four making $11,000, pays no
income taxes, about $842 in payroll taxes, and receives about $4,140
under the earned income tax credit. We are trying to do everything we
can to reach out and help the working poor. We would like to have the
Democrats help with this. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be there.
As a matter of fact, this so-called tax refundability was part of the
Bush 2001 tax bill, which they all voted against. So they are now mad
because they voted no 2 weeks ago and they voted no 2 years ago, and
they are blaming it on us.
Come on, guys, give us a helping hand. We want your ideas, but do not
vote no, then pout and go home, which seems to be kind of the trend
these days. They did not like the war, they do not like Bush, and so
any success Bush seems to have in terms of legislative battles in
Washington they will vote no on.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit this for the Record, but I am going to
read a part of it. It is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal
today. Unfortunately, I do not have the specific author of it. It says,
``The new tax bill exempts another three million plus low-income
workers from any Federal tax liability.'' And you would think that they
would be pleased, but instead they all have outrage, saying it should
go further. ``The tax bill the President signed last week increases the
per child Federal income tax credit to $1,000, up from the partially
refundable $600 credit passed in the 2000 bill.'' Again, a bill all the
Democrats enthusiastically voted against. What the Democrats are saying
is they want more refundable tax credits. Again, it is just welfare.
So I am going to submit this for the Record, Mr. Speaker.
[The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2002]
Even Luckier Duckies
The new tax bill exempts another three million-plus low-
income workers from any federal tax liability whatsoever, so
you'd think the nation's class warriors would be pleased. But
instead we are all now being treated to their outrage because
the law doesn't go further and ``cut'' incomes taxes for
those who don't pay them.
This is the essence of the uproar over the shape of the
child-care tax credit. The tax bill the President signed last
week increases the per child federal income tax credit to
$1,000, up from the partially refundable $600 credit passed
in the 2001 tax bill. But Republican conferees decided that
the increase will not be paid out to those too poor to have
any tax liability to begin with.
Most Americans probably don't realize that it is possible
to cut taxes beyond zero. But then they don't live in
Washington, where politicians regularly demand that tax
credits be made ``refundable.'' which means that the
government writes a check to people whose income after
deductions is too low to owe any taxes. In more honest
precincts, this might even be called ``welfare.''
But among tax cut opponents it is a political spinning
opportunity. ``Simply unconscionable,'' says Presidential
hopeful John Kerry. The Democratic National Committee
declares that the ``Bush tax scheme leaves millions of
children out in the cold . . . one out every six children
under the age of 17, families and children pushed aside to
make room for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy.''
Senator Olympia Snowe, the media's favorite Republican now
that John McCain isn't actively running for President, says
she is dismayed.'' ``I don't know why they would cut that out
of the bill,'' adds Senator Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.). Those
last two remarks take chutzpah, because if either woman had
been willing to vote for the tax bill, a refundability
provision would have been in it.
Senator Lincoln introduced the idea in the Senate Finance
Committee, but then announced she wasn't going to vote for
the bill anyway. Ms. Snowe was also one of those, along with
Senator George Voinovich (R., Ohio), who insisted that the
bill's total ``cost''--in tax cuts and new spending--not
exceed $350 billion. Something had to give in House-Senate
conference to meet that dollar
[[Page H4964]]
limit, and out went refundability. The bill passed by a
single Senate vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking
the tie.
As it happens, the tax bill does a great deal for low-
income families even without the refundable child credit
addition. It expands the 10 percent income tax bracket,
meaning that workers can earn more before leaping into the
15% and 25% brackets. This is a far better way to provide a
tax cut than is a refundable credit, because it lowers the
high marginal-tax rate wall that these workers face as their
credits phase out at higher income levels.
There's also $10 billion in the bill earmarked for
Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the
poor. And any family that actually has any remaining tax
liability benefits from the extra $400 in child tax credit.
More broadly, the critics want everyone to forget how
steeply progressive the tax code already is. IRS data
released late last year show that the top 1% of earners paid
37.4% of all federal income taxes in 2000. The top 5% paid
56.5% of federal taxes, and the top half of all earners paid
96.1%. In other words, even before President Bush started
slashing taxes on the poor by increasing the child tax credit
in 2001, the bottom 50 percent of filers had next to no
federal income tax liability.
But don't low-income workers have to cough up the payroll
tax? They certainly do, but don't forget that the federal
Earned Income Tax Credit was designed to offset payroll taxes
and is also ``refundable.'' In 2000, the EITC totaled $31.8
billion for 19.2 million Americans, for an average credit of
$1,658. Some 86% of that went to workers who had little or no
income tax liability.
Republicans who just voted for the tax cut could be less
defensive and try to explain all of this. But instead too
many of them are heading for the tall grass, with Senate
Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley already promising to cave as
early as this week on the child tax credit. This is the kind
of political box Republicans walk into when they endorse tax
credits that favor one group over another. Democrats are
better at playing favorites.
We raised some hackles last year when we noted this growing
trend that more and more Americans paid little or no tax.
``Lucky duckies,'' we called this non-taxpaying class at the
time. Notwithstanding liberal spinners, after this tax bill
they're even luckier.
Let me just speak again for the House, Mr. Speaker. We want the
Democrats' ideas. We want the Democrats at the table. We do not like
this pouting: I did not get it my way, therefore, I am going to vote
no. Offer an amendment, and if your amendment passes, vote for the
bill. If they just want to spout the rhetoric and not the policy, that
is one thing, and of course it is mighty suspicious that that might be
what they are doing, but there are a lot of things we would like the
Democrats' help on. We in the Republican Party would like to make the
child tax credit permanent. Right now, the thousand dollar child tax
credit expires in 2 years. We would like to have the Democrats help us
out on that. Do you think they will?
If the Democrats want to help families with children, they should
join us in eliminating the marriage tax penalty because that is phasing
out. Will they help us? Will they help make the marriage tax penalty
relief permanent? If they really want to help us, they could make the
10 percent tax bracket permanent. Will they do that, Mr. Speaker?
Probably not. These are things that will help the American working poor
and they will help American families.
Another thing they could help us with, Mr. Speaker, not that they go
out of their way to ask me for my opinions, but they could help us with
tax simplification. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a Democrat, has offered a tax
simplification bill which I think would be extremely helpful. But we
cannot get much support from most of the Democrats, and certainly none
of the Democrat leadership.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to help the Democrats refresh
their memory. I am pulling up the voting record. And if I get that from
the cloak room before I finish tonight, I will submit it for the
Record. For those Democrats who are demanding that this tax credit be
changed, I want to make sure they realize they voted against the
original bill. This is just for those people who may be tuning in and
listening, at the risk of missing a Seinfeld rerun tonight.
{time} 2230
Well, here we go. These are the folks who voted against H.R. 1836 on
May 16, 2001. This was the refundable tax credit, as the Democrats call
it. I cannot ask the Speaker which Democrats were speaking tonight. I
do not know if that is allowed under the parliamentary rules, so I am
going to go from memory. I believe the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) was raising Cain, and she voted no in the first place. The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), I cannot see offhand how he
voted. Oh, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) voted no for
the original bill.
Let us check the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She is one
of their leaders, as I recall. I cannot quite see her name. She voted
no, Mr. Speaker. In fact, 197 Democrats voted no to begin with. All
this righteous indignation we are hearing about they do not like our
refundable tax credit, they all voted against in 2001. I will submit
this so my dear friends on the other side of the aisle can check and
see how they voted. Maybe that will soften their rhetoric. Maybe they
can start their speeches saying I voted against this, but you all
should have done a better job even though I was against you the whole
way.
Final Vote Results for Rollcall 118
H.R. 1836: Yea-and-Nay, 16-May-2001, 4:10 p.m.
Question: On Passage.
Bill Title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeas Nays Pres NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican.............................. 216 ...... 4
Democratic.............................. 13 196 ...... 1
Independent............................. 1 1 ...... ......
-------------------------------
Totals.............................. 230 197 ...... 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie..................... Graham............. Pence
Aderholt........................ Granger............ Peterson (PA)
Akin............................ Graves............. Petri
Armey........................... Green (WI)......... Pickering
Bachus.......................... Greenwood.......... Pitts
Baker........................... Grucci............. Platts
Ballenger....................... Gutknecht.......... Pombo
Barr............................ Hall (TX).......... Portman
Bartlett........................ Hansen............. Pryce (OH)
Barton.......................... Hart............... Putnam
Bass............................ Hastert............ Quinn
Bereuter........................ Hastings (WA)...... Radanovich
Biggert......................... Hayes.............. Ramstad
Bilirakis....................... Hayworth........... Regula
Bishop.......................... Hefley............. Rehberg
Blunt........................... Herger............. Reynolds
Boehlert........................ Hilleary........... Riley
Boehner......................... Hobson............. Rogers (KY)
Bonilla......................... Hoekstra........... Rogers (MI)
Bono............................ Hostettler......... Rohrabacher
Brady (TX)...................... Houghton........... Ros-Lehtinen
Brown (SC)...................... Hulshof............ Roukema
Bryant.......................... Hunter............. Royce
Burr............................ Hutchinson......... Ryan (WI)
Burton.......................... Hyde............... Ryun (KS)
Buyer........................... Isakson............ Saxton
Callahan........................ Issa............... Scarborough
Calvert......................... Istook............. Schaffer
Camp............................ Jenkins............ Schrock
Cantor.......................... John............... Sensenbrenner
Capito.......................... Johnson (CT)....... Sessions
Castle.......................... Johnson (IL)....... Shadegg
Chabot.......................... Johnson, Sam....... Shaw
Chambliss....................... Jones (NC)......... Shays
Clement......................... Keller............. Sherwood
Coble........................... Kelly.............. Shimkus
Collins......................... Kennedy (MN)....... Shows
Combest......................... Kerns.............. Simmons
Condit.......................... King (NY).......... Simpson
Cox............................. Kingston........... Skeen
Cramer.......................... Kirk............... Smith (MI)
Crane........................... Knollenberg........ Smith (NJ)
Crenshaw........................ Kolbe.............. Smith (TX)
Culberson....................... LaHood............. Souder
Cunningham...................... Largent............ Spence
Davis, Jo Ann................... Latham............. Stearns
Davis, Tom...................... LaTourette......... Stump
Deal............................ Leach.............. Sununu
DeLay........................... Lewis (CA)......... Sweeney
DeMint.......................... Lewis (KY)......... Tancredo
Diaz-Balart..................... Linder............. Tauzin
Doolittle....................... LoBiondo........... Taylor (NC)
Dreier.......................... Lucas (KY)......... Terry
Duncan.......................... Lucas (OK)......... Thomas
Dunn............................ Maloney (CT)....... Thornberry
Ehlers.......................... Manzullo........... Thune
Ehrlich......................... McCrery............ Tiahrt
Emerson......................... McHugh............. Tiberi
English......................... McInnis............ Toomey
Everett......................... McIntyre........... Traficant
Ferguson........................ McKeon............. Upton
Flake........................... Mica............... Vitter
Fletcher........................ Miller (FL)........ Walden
Foley........................... Miller, Gary....... Walsh
Fossela......................... Moran (KS)......... Wamp
Frelinghuysen................... Morella............ Watkins
Gallegly........................ Myrick............. Watts (OK)
Ganske.......................... Nethercutt......... Weldon (FL)
Gekas........................... Ney................ Weldon (PA)
Gibbons......................... Northup............ Weller
Gilchrest....................... Norwood............ Whitfield
Gillmor......................... Nussle............. Wicker
Gilman.......................... Osborne............ Wilson
Goode........................... Ose................ Wolf
Goodlate........................ Otter.............. Young (AK)
Gordon.......................... Oxley.............. Young (FL)
Goss............................ Paul...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAYS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ackerman........................ Harman............. Neal
Allen........................... Hastings (FL)...... Oberstar
Andrews......................... Hill............... Obey
Baca............................ Hilliard........... Olver
Baird........................... Hinchey............ Ortiz
Baldacci........................ Hinojosa........... Owens
Baldwin......................... Hoeffel............ Pallone
Barcia.......................... Holden............. Pascrell
Barrett......................... Holt............... Pastor
Becerra......................... Honda.............. Payne
Bentsen......................... Hooley............. Pelosi
Berkley......................... Hoyer.............. Peterson (MN)
Berman.......................... Inslee............. Phelps
[[Page H4965]]
Berry........................... Israel............. Pomeroy
Blagjevich...................... Jackson (IL)....... Price (NC)
Blumenauer...................... Jackson-Lee (TX)... Rahall
Bonior.......................... Jefferson.......... Rangel
Borski.......................... Johnson, E. B...... Reyes
Boswell......................... Jones (OH)......... Rivers
Boucher......................... Kanjorski.......... Rodriquez
Boyd............................ Kaptur............. Roemer
Brady (PA)...................... Kennedy (RI)....... Ross
Brown (FL)...................... Kildee............. Rothman
Brown (OH)...................... Kilpatrick......... Roybal-Allard
Capps........................... Kind (WI).......... Rush
Capuano......................... Kleczka............ Sabo
Cardin.......................... Kucinich........... Sanchez
Carson (IN)..................... LaFalce............ Sanders
Carson (OK)..................... Lampson............ Sandlin
Clay............................ Langevin........... Sawyer
Clayton......................... Lantos............. Schiff
Clyburn......................... Larsen (WA)........ Scott
Conyers......................... Larson (CT)........ Serrano
Costello........................ Lee................ Sherman
Coyne........................... Levin.............. Skelton
Crowley......................... Lewis (GA)......... Slaughter
Cummings........................ Lipinski........... Smith (WA)
Davis (CA)...................... Lofgren............ Snyder
Davis (FL)...................... Lowey.............. Solis
Davis (IL)...................... Luther............. Spratt
DeFazio......................... Maloney (NY)....... Stark
DeGette......................... Markey............. Stenholm
Delahunt........................ Mascara............ Strickland
DeLauro......................... Matheson........... Stupak
Deutsch......................... Matsui............. Tanner
Dicks........................... McCarthy (MO)...... Tauscher
Dingell......................... McCarthy (NY)...... Taylor (MS)
Doggett......................... McCollum........... Thompson (CA)
Dooley.......................... McDermott.......... Thompson (MS)
Doyle........................... McGovern........... Thurman
Edwards......................... McKinney........... Tierney
Engel........................... McNulty............ Towns
Eshoo........................... Meehan............. Turner
Etheridge....................... Meek (FL).......... Udall (CO)
Evans........................... Meeks (NY)......... Udall (NM)
Farr............................ Menendez........... Velazquez
Fattah.......................... Millender-McDonald. Visclosky
Filner.......................... Miller, George..... Waters
Ford............................ Mink............... Watt (NC)
Frank........................... Moakley............ Waxman
Frost........................... Mollohan........... Weiner
Gephardt........................ Moore.............. Wexler
Gonzalez........................ Moran (VA)......... Woosley
Green (TX)...................... Murtha............. Wu
Gutierrez....................... Nadler............. Wynn
Hall (OH)....................... Napolitano......... .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT VOTING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannon.......................... Cubin.............. Schakowsky
Cooksey......................... Horn............... .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to tax simplification and national sales tax, our
current IRS code is 8 million words. It is something that requires
something like $200 billion in compliance costs. That is every time you
and I fill out our taxes, pay an accountant, pay a lawyer, H.R. Block,
whoever, help us figure out how much we owe to Uncle Sam, we pay about
$200 billion. We spend something like 4.5 billion man-hours to fill out
our taxes. There are something like 500 different forms for the Tax
Code. The problem is that it gets more and more complicated every year.
What the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) proposes is let us go to
23 percent sales tax. We will not tax anything but consumption. Savings
will not be taxed. Savings on used goods will not be there. The average
tax liability for the average person will fall by about 7 percent, or
even more, simply because you are paying right now about 30 percent. So
this will help Americans not only have a simpler tax life, but it will
also only tax consumption, and it will give less of a tax liability
than we have right now.
This bill is in the Committee on Ways and Means. I hope that we will
start having hearings on it. It is worth a debate. We could put a small
credit in there to exempt food, medical items, so the working poor are
not picking up a heavier burden here. These are some of the things that
we want to move to in this House, and I am hoping we can get good
bipartisan support on it.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak tonight about Iraq because a large
portion of this session has been spent on Iraq. The liberation of this
country has been extremely well received. In fact, I have an article
written by Jonathan Foreman who is a reporter there, and he talks about
some of the things that he sees that do not quite make it to the prime
time left wing media.
He says that it seems like the old women and young flirt outrageously
with GIs, lifting their veils to smile, waving from high windows, and
shyly calling hello from half-open doors, or the way little girls seem
to speak English better than the little boys who are elbowing them out
of the way, or the way the troops get a sense of gender violence
endemic in their culture. He writes that yesterday in a poor
neighborhood, two 14-year-old sisters introduced themselves to me, and
they were chased away by a rock-wielding male relative.
Bad Reporting in Baghdad
you have no idea how well things are going
(By Jonathan Foreman)
Baghdad.--It's endlessly fascinating to watch the
interactions between U.S. patrols and the residents of
Baghdad. It's not just the love bombing the troops continue
to receive from all classes of Baghdad--though the intensity
of the population's pro-American enthusiasm is astonishing,
even to an early believer in the liberation of Iraq, and
continues unabated despite delays in restoring power and
water to the city. It's things like the reaction of the
locals to black troops. They seem to be amazed by their
presence in the American army. One group of kids in a poor
neighborhood shouted ``Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson'' at Staff
Sergeant Darren Swain; the daughter of a diplomat on the
other hand informed him, ``One of my maids has the same skin
as you.''
It's things like the way the women old and young flirt
outrageously with GIs, lifting their veils to smile, waving
from high windows, and shyly calling hello from half-opened
doors. Or the way the little girls seem to speak much better
English than the little boys who are always elbowing them out
of the way. Or the way the troops get a sense of the gender
violence endemic in the culture: Yesterday in the poor al
Sahliya neighborhood two sweet 12 to 14-year-old sisters on a
rooftop who introduced themselves to me and Staff Sergeant
Gannon Edgy as Souha and Samaha were chased away by a rock-
wielding male relative. His violent anger hinted at problems
to come here.
But you won't see much of this on TV or read about it in
the papers. To an amazing degree, the Baghdad-based press
corps avoids writing about or filming the friendly dealings
between U.S. forces here and the local population--most
likely because to do so would require them to report the
extravagant expressions of gratitude that accompany every
such encounter. Instead you read story after story about the
supposed fury of Baghdadis at the Americans for allowing the
breakdown of law and order in their city.
Well, I've met hundreds of Iraqis as I accompanied army
patrols all over the city during the past two weeks and I've
never encountered any such fury (even in areas that were
formerly controlled by the Marines, who as the premier
warrior force were never expected to carry out peacekeeping
or policing functions). There is understandable
frustration about the continuing failure of the Americans
to get the water supply and the electricity turned back
on, though the ubiquity of generators indicates that the
latter was always a problem. And there are appeals for
more protection (difficult to provide with only 12,000
troops in a city of 6 million that has not been placed
under strict martial law). But there is no fury.
Given that a large proportion of the city's poorest
residents have taken part in looting the Baathist elite's
ministries, homes,and institutions, that should tell you
something about the sources preferred by the denizens of the
Palestine Hotel (the preferred home of the press corps).
Indeed it's striking that while many of the troops I've
accompanied find themselves feeling some sympathy for the
inhabitants of ``Typhoid Alley'' and other destitute
neighborhoods and their attempts to obtain fans, furniture,
TVs, etc., the press corps often seems solidly on the side of
those who grew fat under the Saddam regime. (That said,
imagine the press hysteria that would have greeted a decision
by U.S. troops to use deadly force against the looters and
defend the property of the city's elite.) Even in the
wealthiest neighborhoods--places like the Mansoor district,
where you still see intact pictures of Saddam Hussein--poeple
seem to be a lot more pro-American than you could ever
imagine from reading the wires.
Perhaps this is just another case of reporters with an
Anti-American or antiwar agenda. Perhaps living in Saddam's
totalitarian Baghdad has left some of the press here with a
case of Stockholm syndrome. It may also be a byproduct of
depending on interpreters and fixers who were connected to or
worked with the approval of the Saddam regime. And you cannot
underestimate the herd instinct that can take over when you
have a lot of media folk in a confined area for any length of
time. But whatever the cause, the result has been very
selective reporting.
The Associated Press's Hamza Hendawi, for instance,
massively exaggerated and misrepresented the nature of the
looting in Baghdad in the first days after the U.S. armored
forces took key points in the city. Like so many Baghdad-
based reporters, she described an ``unchecked frenzy'' that
did not exist at that time (the looting was targeted and
nonviolent, in the sense that the looters attacked neither
persons nor inhabited dwellings). Read her pieces and you'll
meet a veritable parade of Iraqis who are angry with the
United States.
Then there were those exaggerated reports of April1 8
claiming (as Reuters' Hassan Hafidh put it) that ``Tens of
thousands of protesters demanded on Friday that the United
States get out of Iraq. . . . In the biggest protest since
U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein's iron-fisted, 24-year-
long rule nine days ago, Muslims poured out of mosques and
into the streets of Baghdad, calling for an Islamic state to
be established.'' Demonstrators did come out of one mosque,
but reporters seem to have confused them with the large
numbers of Shia Muslims gathering for the pilgrimage to
Karbala--a pilgrimage long forbidden by the Saddam regime.
There are frequent small demonstrations in the blocks
outside the Palestine an Sheraton hotels--partly because that
is where the press corps is congregated, but also because
it's an area that many Baath party officials fled to after
the war began. Anyone who assumes that the atmosphere of that
[[Page H4966]]
downtown area is in any way representative of the city would
be gravely mistaken. However, many reporters have chosen to
do just that rather than venture further out to places where
they would have seen that far more typical and frequent
``demonstrations'' involve hundreds or even thousands of
Iraqis gathering to cheer U.S. troops. Admittedly, some of
those crowds include people begging for money, desperate for
aid, or just curious about these strange-looking foreigners.
``Most children here have never seen a foreigner'' one
Iraqi civilian explained to me, ``that is why they are so
excited.'' Another told me with a smile, ``Everyone here
wanted to go to America; now America has come here!''
More irritating is the myth constantly repeated by antiwar
columnists that the military let the city be destroyed--in
particular the hospitals and the national museum--while
guarding the Ministry of Oil. The museum looting is turning
out to have been grotesquely exaggerated. And there is no
evidence for the ministry of oil story. Depending on the
article, the Marines had either a tank or a machine gun nest
outside the ministry. Look for a photo of that tank or that
machine gun nest and you'll look in vain. And even if the
Marines had briefly guarded the oil ministry it would have
been by accident: The Marines defended only the streets
around their own headquarters and so-called Areas of
Operation. Again, though, given the pro-regime sources
favored by so many of the press corps huddled in the
Palestine Hotel, it's not surprising that this rumor became
gospel.
A typical piece of reporting on the ``destruction'' in
Baghdad came from the Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran
on April 22, which repeated all the usual gossip about the
ministry of oil and then quoted Saad Jawad, a professor of
political science at Baghdad University: ``The Iraqis had
very high hopes for the Americans,'' Jawad told him. ``But
all this euphoria about change, all this relief, went away
when they saw the amount of destruction to the infrastructure
of the country and the carelessness of the Americans to the
Iraqis' day-to-day lives.'' Yes, euphoria is bound dissipate,
but there's no sign it has yet. More important, what
infrastructure destruction? The reporter lets the charge
stand undisputed but must be aware that roads, bridges, power
stations, and rails lines were all left unbombed and intact
by U.S. forces. The exception was power substations that fed
key government buildings and broadcasting facilities (unless
you count army bases and secret police headquarters as
``infrastructure'').
But my favorite mad media moment was when an AP journalist
turned up in a car heading to the Ministry of Information,
the top floor of which was on fire. ``Why aren't you putting
out the fire?'' she angrily demanded of Sgt. William Moore.
He looked at her with astonishment and asked, ``How the hell
am I supposed to do that?'' Turning away, he muttered, ``Piss
on it?''
It is true that the military has been slow in some respects
to make the transition to an occupation role. And the senior
brass here and at CENTCOM have a lot of explaining to do
about their planning for postwar operations--the Army arrived
here with virtually no Arabic speakers and even after two
weeks there were only a handful. But as Gen. Buford Blount of
the 3rd Infantry Division pointed out the same day as the
Ministry of Information fire, ``It's only a week since we
were in combat here,'' and the media have bizarrely high
expectations about how quickly a conquered city should return
to normal.
Even embedded journalists (or perhaps their editors) can
unconsciously misconstrue the facts on the ground. For
instance, David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times, who like
me is embedded with the 4th Battalion of the 64th Armored
Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, recently accompanied my
Scout platoon on a patrol. We went to an upmarket residential
area, in which houses that formerly belonged to top Baath
officials had been taken over by looters--and in which a
house owned by Qusay Hussein had been destroyed by a JDAM
bomb. I was talking to Dr. Ali Faraj al Salih, a cardiologist
trained at Edinburgh, when Zucchino, a fine, experienced
foreign correspondent, walked over and began listening in. I
asked Dr. Ali if he'd had any trouble with looters. ``No'' he
replied, ``I have guns, with license from the government. And
I have two bodyguards.'' ``Have you always had the
bodyguards?'' I asked him. ``Oh yes,'' he said.
But Zucchino's April 22 article in the L.A. Times--
headlined ``In Postwar `Dodge City,' Soldiers Now
Deputies''--reports ``Dr. Ali Faraj, a cardiologist, stood
before his well-appointed home and mentioned that he has
hired two armed guards,'' as if the doctor had been driven to
this expense by unrest following the arrival of the
Americans.
Things may yet go horribly wrong here in American-occupied
Baghdad. But it is bizarre and sad that so few journalists
are able or willing to recognize this honeymoon period for
what it is.
A lot of these things we are not going to see on TV because the press
corps avoids writing about the friendly dealings with the U.S. forces
and the local population, and really focuses more on rioting and
looting and kind of misrepresenting the nature of things.
One report said, for example, that looting was going on in an
unchecked frenzy, and that was not the case at all, and many things
were actually returned. I want to submit this also for the Record, but
it just goes to show that even now the left cannot let it rest.
Their first reaction after 9/11 was why do they hate us, as if people
in the World Trade Center were somehow to blame for a madman flying a
plane into their office building.
Then we heard if we go to war, it is going to the west, America
versus all of the Islamic states. We are going to have the west versus
Muslims. That did not happen. Then they said we are going to have
thousands and thousands of our finest young and men returning home in
body bags. That did not happen. Tragically some did come home in body
bags, but not the thousands and thousands.
Then when we started up the Euphrates River, they said the worst
fighting is further up river. Then we go to the towns, oh, it is the
plan, it is the plan. And then it seems like every retired general who
is looking for a little media time who wanted to dissent could get on
nightly news and say what was going wrong in Iraq.
The next thing you know, we won, and they jump on a 23-year-old
marine corporal because before tearing down the Saddam Hussein statue,
he puts an American flag on it. Then the statue comes down and the
report is about looting, and that is the way, unfortunately, the media
looks at the world and looks at America. It is the blame America first
crowd.
Here are some quotes from their allies in Hollywood, I do not know
David Clennon, an actor, but here is what he said. ``I'm saying that
the moral climate within the ruling class in America is not different
from the moral climate within the ruling class of Hitler's Germany.''
Here is Janeanne Garofalo, another actress, ``So when I see the
American flag, I go, `Oh my God, you're insulting me.' ''
Here is Whoopi Goldberg, ``I don't really view communism as a bad
thing.'' That is an interesting view, but communism was not in question
in the war on Iraq, but that has never stopped Hollywood, if you do not
know the facts, still jump in as long as you have the microphone.
Here is somebody named Chrissie Hynde, ``Let's get rid of the
economic (expletive) this country represents. Bring it on, I hope the
Muslims win.''
Here is Oliver Stone. ``Bin Laden was completely protected by the oil
companies in this country who told President Bush not to go after him
or it would tick off the Saudis.'' I cleaned that one up a little bit.
Richard Roeper, of Ebert & Roeper, sends a strong a message
to the Hollywood anti-war crowd:
``Even though you are among the luckiest and best-rewarded
human beings in the history of civilization, you have moaned
long and loud about life in the oppressive United States of
America. And you have complained that free speech is
practically an endangered species--though it's not as if
you've been kidnapped, bound and gagged for expressing your
views . . . But I'm just wondering: If you're such a crusader
for kindness and decency and the rules of fair play, when are
you going to say something about the atrocities committed by
Iraqis since this war broke out?''
``I'm saying that the moral climate within the ruling class
in this country is not that different from the moral climate
within the ruling class of Hitler's Germany.''--David
Clennon.
``So when I see the American flag, I go, `Oh my God, You're
insulting me.' ''
`` `We're here, we're queer!'--that's what makes my heart
swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the
flag. I get choked up with pride.''--Janeanne Garofalo.
Trendy Protesting (of Republicans): Explaining why she and
other anti-war protesters didn't organize demonstrations when
President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia,
Afghanistan and the Sudan ``It wasn't very hip'' [to protest
Clinton's Wars].
``I don't really view communism as a bad thing.''--Whoopi
Goldberg.
``Have we gone to war yet? We (expletive) deserve to get
bombed. Bring it on.''
``Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this
country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!''--
Chrissie Hynde.
``I think America has no experience with terrorism or even
with war. In Europe, we know a little bit more about these
things.''--Bono.
``Bin Laden was completely protected by the oil companies
in this country who told [President] Bush not to go after him
because it would piss off the Saudis.''--Oliver Stone.
Mr. Speaker, this is the caliber of debate we hear out of Hollywood,
and it seems to be echoed by so much of the
[[Page H4967]]
media. I was actually born in Texas, and I live in Georgia right now. I
used to be a Dixie Chicks fan; I am not any more. I will say this, and
I am speaking as a native-born Texan, but if the Dixie Chicks are
ashamed that President Bush is from Texas, I have news for them, I am
ashamed that you all are from Dixie. I will say in addition to that, if
you do not like it, go sell your records in Paris, and I am sure they
will really like it over there.
There is a big debate going on now about who is going to help rebuild
Iraq. I think that there is a humanitarian role for the U.N., but I
want to point out if the U.N. is left completely in charge, they do not
have such a great track record. We have been out of Kosovo for 4 years.
Kosovo is a country that used to export electricity, and now they have
to have rolling blackouts. Every 4 hours in Kosovo, you have to turn
off your lights.
The U.N. also requires when they have free elections, that 30 percent
of the candidates need to be female. They might need to be 100 percent.
Free elections are supposed to decide that, not some politically
correct U.N. mandate.
They have also discouraged private investment, insurance companies
and so forth, are discouraged from investing in the rebuilding of
Kosovo. If you do not have insurance companies investing, you do not
get bank loans. If you do not get bank loans, you do not get outside
investors. So the Kosovo rebuilding under the U.N. has not gone well,
and that is why it is important for America to keep its presence there.
I want to say to France and Russia and to the other countries who
oppose what we are doing, we are not going to kick you out of the
rebuilding process, it is just when you come, bring your own checkbook.
In terms of the Brits and the 49 other countries that were in the
coalition, we want them there. It is very important.
I want to read a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Bob Braddy.
He wrote a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in the U.K. and he says,
``Dear Mr. Prime Minister, Recognizing you are extremely busy with your
country's business and world affairs, my family and I wanted to take a
moment to thank you for your support of George Bush and the United
States with regards to the Iraq situation.
``Your steadfastness and determination along with the coalition of
nations will have historical ramifications for that country that will
take generations to unfold and benefit the Middle Eastern area.
``Thank you so much and Godspeed to you in all the days to come.
``Sincerely, Mr. Robert Braddy.''
And Tony Blair wrote him back. ``10 Downing Street. Thank you for
your kind words and good wishes. I appreciate you taking the time to
write. My best wishes to you and your family.'' It is signed Tony
Blair.
Savannah, GA,
March 22, 2003.
Mr. Tony Blair,
United Kingdom Prime Minister,
London, England.
Dear Prime Minister Tony Blair: Recognizing that you are
extremely busy with your country's business and world
affairs, my family and I wanted to take a moment to Thank You
for your support of President George Bush and the United
States with regards to the Iraq situation.
Your steadfastness and determination along with the
coalition of nations will have historical ramifications for
that Country that will take generations to unfold and benefit
the entire Middle Eastern Area.
Thank you so much and God Speed for you in all the days to
come.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Braddy.
____
London SW1A 2AA.
Thank you for your kind words and good wishes. I appreciate
you taking the time to write. My best wishes to you and your
family.
Tony Blair.
That is an example of the grass roots affection that goes on between
Americans and the Brits. We do not feel that way about every country in
the world, and that is okay, too. But we want to work together on what
is best for Iraq and what is best for world affairs.
I also wanted to talk about some of the other initiatives that we
have going on in the House. The House continues to be very productive.
We have passed already some medical liability reform, tort reform to
stop frivolous medical lawsuits. If you talk to any doctor, hospital or
health care provider, they will tell you that one of their biggest
expenses these days is fear of frivolous medical lawsuits.
The interesting thing is that in 70 percent of these claims, no
payment ever makes it to the injured party. When it does, when money
does get to them, it is an average of only 50 cents on the dollar.
{time} 2245
Our bill caps some of the benefits, not the economic loss but some of
the noncompensatory losses. It is modeled after a law in California
which has held down frivolous medical lawsuits. I hope that the other
body will take this up and do something about it, because it is very
important to keep down the cost of health care.
We are also going to look at asbestos liability reform. An
interesting note is that right now asbestos lawsuits, there are about
200,000 pending in Federal courts. Ninety thousand new ones are filed
every year. Of those 90,000 new claims, 80 percent of them have no
injury involved. Eighty percent of the claimants are not even hurt.
Interestingly enough, 95 percent of them are filed in six counties in
the United States of America. Yes, something is going on. We need to
address it.
I want to also talk about a bill we passed out of the House that we
believe will turn the economy around along with our recently passed
jobs package which the Democrats opposed, and that is the energy bill.
Our energy bill has three components to it, three triangles. One is
conservation, another one is research and then the other one is more
exploration with less dependence on foreign sources of oil. I want to
just start with that. Just keep in mind, we hear so much from the
environmental extremists about Alaskan oil reserves. The Alaska
wildlife reserve area is the size of South Carolina. Remember, Alaska
is the largest State. Texas fits inside Alaska. South Carolina is a
fairly large State on the east coast. That is the size of the wildlife
reserve. And in it we are talking about exploring for oil in 2,000
acres. We heard from the left and the environmentalists before in
Prudhoe Bay, if you do this, it is going to hurt the caribou tribe. The
funny thing is the caribou tribe actually went up after we started
exploration in Prudhoe Bay. So I think we can do these things in an
environmentally sensitive way. But it also ties into national security
and also personal security. If somebody wants to drive an SUV and, Mr.
Speaker, I know you are a single man down there in Florida, but I am a
domestic guy. I have four children. I about 2 years ago was driving up
to New York. I was going up I-95 from Savannah, Georgia. I did not know
that you go through Delaware to get to New York. I was just driving and
all of a sudden I am in a four-car collision. I have four kids in the
family and my wife. I want as much metal in between me and the other
guy as possible. I am driving my Suburban, which is a politically
incorrect thing to many folks on the left and, lo and behold, the car
behind me has to be towed away and we do not even have a scratch on the
Suburban. The Delaware police who were very nice and professional said,
you can go on. And so I drove on to New York in my Suburban,
politically as incorrect as possible, with every kid in my family safe
and unharmed. That is why I want a big car. That is why I think the
moms in America should have the option of a big car. That is why it is
important to realize that we have got to keep a good fossil fuel supply
in this country and not just be dependent on some of our Middle Eastern
allies who are not always the best allies in the world. We need to look
at Alaska reserves, we need to look at Venezuela, we need to look at
Russia. We need to just keep our options open, but that is a major part
of our energy package.
The other thing is research. There are so many exciting things going
on in research right now, cell fuels, hydrogen fuels. I was reading the
other day, there is a car now that is a hovercraft. It is made by
Moeller International. I think it is called an M400 Skycar. I want one
as soon as possible, because it flies off the ground. It has a
vertical-horizontal uptake. In fact, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
probably already knows about it because he is such a fan of the Osprey,
which can do that. This car just takes off and it can
[[Page H4968]]
toot around, a great way to get rid of the traffic jams on 395 in
Washington, D.C. There is also a contraption that has already been
built that if you think about it maybe like this, a lectern, the size
of a phone booth, that you step in it and it flies. It is an individual
spacecraft. It will go about 40 miles an hour and has a range of about
100 miles, right out of Johnny Quest which I know, Mr. Speaker, you
have no idea who Johnny Quest was but I know the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is an old man like me, he remembers Johnny Quest and Hadji
his faithful assistant and Bandit the dog but they would fly around in
these things. I am looking forward to that. It will get the kids out of
the house. It will be fun.
There are so many things that the private sector is doing in the name
of research right now. We are putting a lot of money in our energy
bill, into more bold inventions and ways of stretching out that energy
dollar. The final component of our energy bill is conservation. My dad
was raised in Brooklyn during the Depression, and one of the things he
taught us in Athens, Georgia, is you do not leave the room with the
light left on. You do not brush your teeth with the water flowing out
of the faucet. You take care of the stuff because it is all money. My
dad was an early environmentalist, and he did not know it, because he
made sure that we used as little energy as possible. And we recycled
all kinds of things. But as I drive down Independence Avenue or
Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. and I see buildings, guess
whose buildings have every single light left on? The Federal
Government. You can drive by the Department of Energy, and I hate to
say it, it does not matter who is in charge, Democrats or Republicans,
the lights are left on. We have got to turn the lights off. We in the
Federal Government need to lead the way in conservation. That is part
of our energy bill, is credits for smart buildings, credits for energy-
wise construction and all kinds of things like that. I hope that the
other body will take this important piece of legislation up.
We also have other things that we have passed, such as the healthy
forests initiative, very important. We have some endangered species
relief for our military in a very good defense package. We have
Medicare coming up, Medicare reform which will have a prescription drug
package. We are going to have some post office reform coming up. A lot
of things for veterans. The left does not like it but we did increase
veterans health care spending by about 12 percent. I believe they all
voted against that. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says yes. We are
going to continue to stand up and do everything we can for the
veterans. I am a supporter of the veterans history project which the
Library of Congress is initiating and was passed under Republicans in
the House. The great thing about the veterans history project is if you
are a veteran of any war and you have a story to tell, not necessarily
a glorious story but we want to know about your experience in the war,
contact the Library of Congress, contact your local Congressman and we
can archive that forever so that your great great grandchildren can go
back and see what you did in the war.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania on his work on the defense authorization bill. I think it
is a great bill, and also for touching the sensitive area of training
in the areas where there are endangered species, because I think you
have got a good balance in there but many people do not understand that
some of the training that our military does has greatly been hampered
by the possibility that a species may be there and it is not even
confirmed that they are. I represent Fort Stewart. They have a big
problem with the red-cockaded woodpecker.
____________________