[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13814-13820]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 13815]]

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 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

[[Page 13816]]

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
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

[[Page 13817]]

     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 
     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.

[[Page 13818]]

  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 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,

[[Page 13819]]

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 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

[[Page 13820]]

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.

                          ____________________