[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10652-10658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        ISSUES AFFECTING AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud to be here this 
afternoon, and wanted to talk some about the issues that we are facing 
here in Washington.
  I am proud to say that while the national news has really focused, 
and rightfully so, on the war in Iraq, the House has not only supported 
our military efforts, but we have been working on a very good, pro-
growth, pro-jobs domestic agenda. We have a good jobs package that will 
be voted on this week, we have passed a good energy bill, we have 
passed a good education bill, and we will be working on a Medicare 
reform bill very soon. So I am optimistic about the things that the 
House has been doing.
  We hear a lot of partisan politics and a lot of bashing. I guess one 
of the things that is frustrating to me is that while we hear people, 
as one of the previous speakers was talking about tax breaks for the 
wealthy, and that just seems to be the Democrat buzz phrase for hatred 
and division in society, what I have been curious about is tear down 
somebody else's policy or plan, if you want to, but offer your own.
  It is always curious, we do not hear too many alternatives from the 
other party. I say, look, hey, this floor is the great hall of debate. 
Whether you are liberal or conservative, urban or rural, bring your 
ideas to the floor. Offer your ideas in the form of amendments. Offer 
your ideas in the form of legislation, and let us see what we can do. 
Bring the best of the Democrats, the best of the Republicans, together 
to do what is best for America.
  It is always disappointing when you hear people just attack 
legislation when it is clear they have not even read the bill. Yet on 
the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you cannot take the politics out of 
politics, so what the heck, let us just move on with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the war in Iraq. I 
have to continuously brag about the 3rd Infantry Division in 
Hinesville, Georgia, Fort Stewart. I am wearing their patch on my 
lapel, which was given to me by the wives organizations down there. I 
am very proud of what they did. We followed them up the Euphrates River 
as they marched on to Baghdad.

                              {time}  1615

  Also, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that I have had more constituents 
in the last month sleep in Saddam Hussein's palace than I have who have 
eaten in French restaurants. That is probably going to continue to be 
the case as the months and weeks pass by.
  But in terms of the mission in Iraq, liberating Iraq, one of the 
things that we have had in Congress is many former Iraqi citizens who 
have come to seek refuge in the United States of America, many women. 
And these are women whose fathers or brothers were abducted, sisters 
and cousins, and for very small offenses, such as starting peace 
movements or protesting this or that. And they lived under the 
oppression of Saddam Hussein's regime. And it was a common practice 
that if he had a critic he would take their wife or their daughter and 
videotape sexual abuses of them and show it back to the male members of 
the family and say, get in line, get behind our program, or we will 
continue it. What a harsh way to deal with enemies.
  We are, of course, finding mass graves. Amnesty International, which 
is not exactly a pro-American organization, estimated that there are 
anywhere between 70,000 and 150,000 Iraqis who have disappeared, 
unaccounted for, the highest number of any nation in the world. And now 
we are seeing these mass graves and trying to identify the loved ones 
of the Iraqi people.
  But all of these folks have told us over and over again, we need an 
outside force to liberate us; we cannot do it from within. That 
liberation has come. From the left we heard all kinds of criticism 
during the war: well, the war is just going to be a blood bath, 
thousands and thousands of people on both sides will be killed. Yet, 
this was one of the first, probably the first war in history where the 
regime was removed with as little damage as possible to the citizens. 
And that is very important, because ordinarily we go in and we wipe out 
a country as a way of removing the regime. In this case, historically, 
we were able to remove the regime with almost a surgical removal rather 
than just blowing up everything and everybody.
  Now, there was collateral damage, but very minimal compared to other 
wars in the past. The people there, again, have responded very, very 
positively; and the liberation has begun. But unfortunately, Mr. 
Speaker, we cannot just add water and have a democracy overnight. Many 
people now on the left are saying, well, it is going to be a long time. 
Well, there are nations in this world who do not want us to succeed. 
Unfortunately, many of them are democratic nations themselves who seem 
to be a constant thorn, a constant critic. But we want democracy, 
frankly, in all of the Middle Eastern countries, personally speaking. 
But I think it is very important to try to achieve that right now in 
Iraq, and we are moving in that direction. Who should rebuild it? Well, 
the U.N. again, not exactly a good catalyst for peace in Iraq, an 
organization that has spent a lot of time criticizing America.
  Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleagues have heard, 
but last Friday at the U.N., the food workers union went on strike; and 
they went on strike and closed down the cafeteria during Friday at 
lunch, and so some supervisor at the U.N. said, well, we are going to 
open up the cafeteria. Guess what happened? All of these high and 
mighty U.N. people decided to have a run on the cafeteria. They looted 
the food, they looted the wine, they even stole the silverware, and the 
damages and the food loss is anywhere from $7,000 to $9,000. These are 
supposed to be the people who have been criticizing America. That was 
reported by the Washington Times. So much for U.N. foolishness. It is 
probably in line with everything else.
  But if we would look at what the U.N. has done for Kosovo, we have 
been out of it; and officially there has been peace there since March 
23, 4 years ago. Well, pre-war Kosovo used to export electricity. Now 
they have to have every 4 hours a mandatory blackout, rolling blackouts 
where they have to turn off all of their electricity for 2 hours. That 
is Kosovo under U.N. rebuilding. Elections, supposed to be free 
elections; and yet under the U.N. mandate, one has to have 30 percent 
of the candidates be women. Now, maybe it should be 100 percent. Maybe 
it is some other formula. But in a free country, you let the people, 
the electorate decide; you do not have some U.N. bureaucrat sitting in 
New York mandating the quota for Kosovo.
  Also in Kosovo under the U.N., interpreters are paid $300 and $400 
and $500 a week, whereas former business people are paid $100 a week. 
The economy has not turned around at all. One of the reasons is the 
U.N. is not supporting the concept of private property and private 
investment and insurance and things that are fundamental to investment 
in an economy. The U.N. has not done a good job of that. So I think the 
U.N.'s role in terms of Iraq, they should be there for humanitarian 
assistance, should be there to complement the U.S. efforts; but I do 
not think they are any kind of organization that can lead.
  I frankly believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that the U.S. 
Congress has

[[Page 10653]]

some hearings on the U.N. We pick up 25 percent of their tab. And yet, 
if you ask the people of America should we still be involved in it, I 
do not think they would pass muster, if we threw it out to the American 
electorate. I do not want to throw the U.N. out, and I do not want to 
give up on them yet; but I do think they are in dire, dire need of some 
reforms.
  We are going to be talking about our jobs bill and we have been 
joined by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), and he 
has been a very hardworking freshman Member of this body who has worked 
to help create jobs in south Florida as well as the rest of the 
country. I would certainly be honored to yield any time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), if he wants to talk 
about Iraq or the jobs bill or whatever else is on his mind.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Georgia. Before I say anything else, I think it is important to 
once again commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). I recall 
his words before the war talking about the importance of liberating the 
people of Iraq and how frustrated I think many in this country and the 
gentleman was by the reaction of some of the extreme left that was 
really just denigrating really the Iraqi people, saying that they could 
not be free, saying that they did not want to be free, saying that they 
were not going to welcome the liberating troops. And the gentleman was 
very clear then, and he continues to be very clear; and I want to thank 
him for that. It is amazing how common sense does prevail.
  The gentleman was just mentioning that now that the left has to admit 
that the people of Iraq deserve to be free, wanted to be free, deserve 
to be free, now they are saying, well, democracy is going to be very 
difficult. I can tell my colleagues one thing: it is not going to be as 
difficult as it would have been if Saddam Hussein were still there. So 
I think it is once again the brave men and women of the United States 
Armed Forces, who put their lives on the line, once again, to protect 
our freedoms, to protect our liberties, and to liberate a people who 
have been suffering for a generation, who deserve our thanks and our 
praise.
  I think our President deserves our thanks and our praise for his 
leadership, for the way that he has shown steadfast leadership. I think 
we all must admire his convictions and his love for freedom. And I 
think the Iraqi people as well as the American people are so much 
better off, because we have gotten rid of, through our armed services, 
those brave young men and women and the leadership of our President 
have gotten rid of a dictator who was a threat not only to the Iraqi 
people and to the region, but clearly a grave threat to the American 
people.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is we hear from some 
people, well, we should not interfere in Iraq. It is like oh, yes, 
these people deserve to be oppressed and put down, and they do not 
deserve freedom; and now that they have been liberated, we are hearing 
the same people saying, well, democracy will not work, as if they are 
intellectually challenged, that they cannot handle it. I wish these 
people would just for one time turn their wrath on France, just for the 
day, just for the day and say, maybe France should not have issued a 
passport to Saddam Hussein and his family. Gee whiz, boys, that was 
bad. Or, gee whiz, garcon, I guess I should say. But it is amazing. 
They are not going to quit and they cannot stand the fact that the 
Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, was right. They 
cannot stand that.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will 
yield, not only can they not stand that, but they also want to blame 
the United States for all of the ills. I keep hearing that the United 
States is to blame for everything. The bad people in Iraq were the 
brave men and women who were there to liberate the Iraqi people. Now, 
it is pretty obvious when we see the Iraqi people's reaction, tearing 
down the statues, crying when they see these unmarked graves where 
their relatives were thrown in, probably taken in the middle of the 
night by the Iraqi regime, it is pretty obvious who the bad people 
were. It is pretty obvious who the good guy is and has always been, and 
that is the American people, the American GIs and men and women who 
liberated France once, twice; and yet the French seem to believe that 
it is okay for the U.S. to sacrifice blood to liberate France twice, 
but it is not okay for anybody else to be liberated. It seems that only 
they have the God-given right to be free.
  Well, I say to my colleagues, that is an attitude that I do not 
share, it is an attitude that the American people do not share, it is 
clearly not an attitude and thank God that the American President, our 
President does not share. Freedom is not something that we can just 
throw away so easily; it is something that is given by God. And every 
once in a while, because of the sacrifice, the patriotism, the love of 
freedom of our men and women in uniform who are all volunteers, 
sometimes some tough sacrifices are made to make sure that our 
interests, our people's interests, our freedoms are protected and also 
at the same time that we can liberate people who have suffered so much.
  The gentleman was just mentioning the atrocities committed on women 
by Saddam Hussein's regime, the atrocities committed on children, on 
everybody. And thank God and thank our Armed Forces and our President 
that that nightmare is over. There are some grave challenges ahead, 
because democracy is not easy.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last week I went to a memorial service for 
the 34 soldiers from the third I.D. at Fort Stewart basically for their 
loved ones, but the 34 soldiers who died. It was interesting as I 
talked to the wives and the mothers and the children of these soldiers 
that none of them were saying, well, he died in vain. It was not that. 
It was, now we have to continue working for Iraqi freedom and for 
Iraq's future and do everything we can. Otherwise, he would have died 
in vain. It was a very touching ceremony, because the patriotism of the 
families of these fallen soldiers did not flinch one bit. It was 
unwavering. Very, very courageous statement, just being there and 
sitting in the stands during the service; and there are 34 sets of 
boots with the rifle and the helmet and the dog tags jangling in the 
wind and yet, at the same time, sadness and a great promise of tomorrow 
juxtaposed. I believe that we have an obligation for those soldiers to 
continue and do these things.
  The audacity of countries like France. Now there is a French company 
that actually serves the United States Marines. It is a multimillion 
dollar contract that they have, I think $81 million, just a tremendous 
amount of money, a French company serving the United States Marines. We 
are going to continue to work on the Department of Defense to give 
favoritism to American companies, or allied companies, or coalition 
companies, and not countries like the French. I mean, can we imagine 
that while these soldiers were dying and the Marine Corps was counting 
their casualties, the French companies, on the backs of the American 
Marines, were counting their profits? It is sickening for me to think 
about in terms of the French dealing with Iraq behind the scenes, the 
French issuing passports. Unfortunately, we have a lot of Democrat 
Members of Congress who are real proud of this and look to France for 
leadership. I just think it is absolutely inexcusable.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Well, if the gentleman will yield, 
I have a hard time understanding in particular how a country like 
France who has twice had to first suffer the humiliation of being taken 
over and then had to wait for the American GIs to liberate them. How, 
out of anybody in the world, how France, how France could have taken up 
the attitude that they did. Look, they have the right to do what they 
want, they are free, they are a democratic government; but I think it 
is important that we recognize and we realize what that attitude was. 
Americans, bright, vibrant, with a lifetime to live, Americans gave 
their lives, gave their lives to liberate the people of Iraq.

[[Page 10654]]



                              {time}  1630

  And the French know it is not that they were praising them, which is 
what they should have been doing, they were criticizing them. They were 
again doing everything in their power to make it not succeed to the 
point of giving passports to the leaders of that regime. I have a hard 
time believing that. Out of everybody in this entire world, if there is 
one group of people that should have understood the beauty of freedom, 
how frail it is and how sometimes you need some help from outside, it 
is the French, it is the French. And I will never forget the writing, 
the graffiti on that grave of British soldiers on French soil, British 
soldiers that died also liberating France in World War II. The writing 
of graffiti on this grave that basically said take this trash, trash, 
these are people who died to liberate a different country, off our soil 
because it is polluting our soil.
  It is a very sad, sad, sad day for the entire world when people just 
disregard the truth, disregard reality, have no semblance of gratitude, 
of respect, and who, I guess, believe that they are the only ones that 
deserve others to die for their freedom and then they criticize those 
that died for their freedom. That is frankly for me very hard to 
stomach. I am optimistic, I am hopeful that they will realize how wrong 
they were. But still those that painted that graffiti, those have no 
forgiveness in my heart.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is sad when you think France was the country home to 
the great Lafayette who fought so hard for American freedom and whose 
portrait hangs on the floor of this Chamber. And yet look at the modern 
Frenchmen. Boy, have they strayed from the love of freedom. To them 
security and safety is paramount among anything. And, unfortunately, 
you do not see France really being a world leader anymore. You see 
France being a world critic. But there are a lot of French companies 
that are doing business in America who are suffering, and there are a 
lot more who are going to hear a lot more in the future, because I 
think before the Department of Defense issues any more contracts to 
French companies it will have to go through a lot of congressional 
scrutiny.
  Let me ask you this: In terms of the economy right now, one of the 
things we want to do is create a lot of jobs as possible. And I am glad 
that in the House we have been working on a good domestic agenda and we 
have got a good jobs package that is coming up. And I am going to be 
supporting that. It has a lot of different elements in it to give 
growth to our economy, but there is a child tax credit, increasing the 
child tax credit to a thousand dollars.
  Now, the gentleman is single, but I have four children and I can tell 
you that really means a lot to the families of this country. Children 
are very, very expensive. You have to buy washers and dryers. You buy 
tennis shoes. They lose tennis shoes. You buy a book bag. They wear it 
out. You cannot buy a sedan any more. You have to buy a station wagon 
or a Suburban. You have to have the extra seatbelts to drive carpool 
with. If the kid wants to take tuba lessons and, God bless him, tubas 
are very expensive, you have to pay for the tuba rental and somebody to 
teach them. You have to buy the school band uniforms and the 
cheerleading uniforms. A thousand dollar tax credit is actually very, 
very modest. And if it had been indexed to inflation, it would be worth 
probably 2 or $3,000 very easily from the time we put in the $500 tax 
credit. But a thousand, making it immediate this year, I think is a 
step in the right direction.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The gentleman just mentioned part 
of this plan is to create jobs, which is what we are talking about 
here. The gentleman just mentioned a big part of it and that is the 
thing that our friends on the Democratic side say is reckless. It is 
reckless to give that tax credit. It is reckless to cut the marriage 
tax.
  You are taxing people because they are married. What is that all 
about? It is hard to believe. And yet when we here in the House are 
focused on trying to create jobs and we are focused on trying to get 
some tax relief to families, get rid of some of those just incredible 
taxes, they say that we are reckless. Reckless because you want to give 
a tax break for the children that a family has? Is that reckless? By 
the way, what is a tax break? It is not a gift. All we are saying is we 
are going to allow those families to keep a little bit more of their 
money and not bring it up here. That is reckless?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am glad you mentioned that. We had a speaker 
previously today who was talking about a Democrat proposal. He kept 
saying, We give this, we give this. Well, you do not give anything. You 
take it away and then you redistribute it. That is all it is, 
redistribution of wealth. It is not our money to give. We just want to 
take less of it. And I think the folks back home, the families raising 
children, know how to spend this thousand dollars a heck of a lot 
better than any brilliance we have on any committee in Washington.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I think that is a big part of the 
problem here, a big part of the philosophical difference between the 
two sides. The other side, and they have the belief that every dollar 
the government has is government's money, that it is government's right 
to have that money, that that is where it belongs.
  We believe, which what I think is pretty obvious, that is not 
government's money. Government takes it from the people, by the way, 
forcefully takes it from the people. The people do not have a choice. 
They have to send it up here; otherwise the IRS will be knocking on 
their door soon. So, no, it is not government's money. It is the 
people's money.
  So they claim we are reckless because we want government to take a 
little bit less of their money so they can reinvest it in their 
children? So they do not get taxed, we take less money, and the 
government takes more when they get married? No. No. It is not 
government's money. If the issue is, well, the government does not have 
enough money, hey, we all understand that we have to do what we have to 
do. But when you look at the fraud and the waste that exists within our 
government, and I have been doing a little bit of work on that and 
doing some research, it does not take long, you do not have to scratch 
real deep to see where some of the money is just thrown away, bucket 
loads of money is thrown away.
  If you ask the American people is the government, is their 
government, the U.S. Federal Government, is it totally efficient? Do we 
not waste any money? Of course we waste money. The American people know 
that and they do not have the ability to see what we get to see on a 
daily basis where the money is wasted.
  So for anybody to say that, no, we cannot let the people keep a 
little bit more of their money and we are going to take it because they 
got married, we are going to take it and not allow them to spend it on 
their kids because it is the government's money, I think that is what 
is reckless. That is what is irresponsible, particularly in a time like 
this, and that is why I have to commend one more time our President.
  Our President has had a lot on his mind, a lot on his plate, and yet 
he has maintained a strong focus on the war on terrorism. He said what 
he was going to do, and I know a lot of people are not used to this, he 
said what he was going to do and he has done what he said. But he has 
also maintained his focus on making sure we can provide jobs for the 
American people.
  Some I guess are happy with the status quo. The President and this 
House, the majority in this House are not content with the status quo. 
People need to be able to find jobs, high paying jobs, productive jobs. 
The plan this House has passed and we continue to work on provides 
jobs. And those that want to criticize his plan are basically saying we 
think the situation is fine. Everybody is okay. What we need to do is 
just take more money. No, we need to take less money, provide more 
jobs, and leave more money in their pockets.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is amazing. One of the other common sense solutions 
we are doing to create jobs is ending the marriage tax penalty.

[[Page 10655]]


  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It does not affect me.
  Mr. KINGSTON. One day you will be lucky enough to join the ranks of 
all of us who are married. And when that happens, you and your wife 
will start, well, let us say right now you are in the 20 percent tax 
bracket and she is in the 20 percent tax bracket, but when you get 
married and your income becomes one, suddenly you will be in the 25 
percent tax bracket. And the only thing that happened is you walked 
down the aisle together and made an oath, and that is not right. It 
penalizes people from getting married. It encourages people to live 
together. It does not make sense. We are trying to end the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Another thing we are proposing to do in order to create jobs is to 
reduce the tax rates. Rates going from 28 to 25 percent, from 31 to 28 
percent, from 36 to 33 percent and 39.6 to 35 percent. Again, it is 
common sense. And the interesting thing is that Democrats have already 
voted this on a bipartisan basis. All we are saying is let us 
accelerate this because the economy needs help now. And, unfortunately, 
sometimes you wonder in this town because everything else under the sun 
seems to happen, you wonder if people would rather have the economy 
stay in the tank so that their political party is benefited. And I 
think that is a sick thing to do if you are playing with people's jobs 
and people's future just so your party can do well.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. One of the things that strikes me 
is what you just said. They have already voted for a lot of these 
proposals. They were in favor of these proposals. And now all of the 
sudden they say that those same proposals that they voted for are 
reckless. Again, we have to repeat what they are, the marriage tax. 
They say that is reckless, again, even though many of them already 
voted for it. That is why you have to ask the question or pose the 
question that you just posed to us. Why all the sudden? And they will 
give you different excuses at different times.
  Well, when the economy is not doing well this is not the time to 
lower taxes. Excuse me? When the economy is not doing well is not the 
time to incentivize the economy? If this is not the time, when is the 
time? Clearly we need to incentivize the economy. I think that what 
happens also is up here in D.C. we sometimes forget reality. We are 
okay up here. We are able to discuss these things on a theoretical 
level. But for those hard working American families who are paying 
those taxes, some of them may have lost a job or fear that they are 
losing their job. This is not theory. This is not something you can 
just talk about. They are desperately looking at ways we can get this 
economy going. They need this economy to do better. They need their 
taxes to be cut so they can keep a little bit more of their money. This 
is not theory. This is practice. This is practice.
  I think a lot of times up here though, you are right, maybe it is 
because they want their party to do better and they want the economy to 
be in the tank for the elections. Maybe they have forgotten or lost 
touch with reality. But when you go home and talk to these people who 
lost their jobs and are fearing about losing their jobs, and you ask 
them, should we now do something or not do something to get this 
economy going. I think the answer is pretty clear that they want this 
economy moving despite what the politicians may say.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The other things we are doing in order to help small 
businesses and we think it is very important to help small businesses 
because that is still 70 percent of the employment in this country, 
and, unfortunately, large businesses come and go. And it is a 
tremendous loss. We just lost a paper mill in St. Mary's, Georgia that 
I represent, 903 jobs. Those jobs are probably gone permanently. We 
hope something will happen to make that statement not the case, but 
unfortunately that is what it is looking like right now.
  Small businesses, you can lose one or two of them and the economy 
still moves along. But depreciation, faster depreciation, increasing 
the bonus depreciation from 30 to 50 percent and extending it another 
few years, again so small businesses can make investments and write 
them off faster, and we believe that is going to be very healthy for 
small businesses. Also allowing them to have a 5-year net operating 
loss carry-back for 3 years, and that will help small businesses 
recover from some of the losses they have suffered under in this post-
9/11 economy. And then, finally, increasing the expensing from 25 to 
$100,000.
  All of this is going to help your bicycle shop, your pet store, your 
clothes store, your tire store, all the small Main Street businesses 
back home. And we believe if you can help them you will do a lot for 
that NASCAR race fan.
  I always say what we need to do is build tax policy around the NASCAR 
race fan. The mom and dad have a household income, one of them makes 
$50,000 and the other makes about $60,000, the household income 
anywhere from $75 to $120,000. They have two and a half kids. They are 
the first in country, first in church, first in patriotism, first in 
paying their taxes, first in rolling up their sleeves, doing a fair 
job, and also do not ask for the government for this or that. They do 
not come to see you and me in Washington, D.C. They do not have an 
agenda. They do not come here to lobby for this loophole or for that 
expenditure. They are just good folks in America. You can find them all 
around the country, from Miami to Savannah, from Maine to San 
Francisco.

                              {time}  1645

  They might not truly be a NASCAR race fan, but if you go up there and 
stick and use that as your guide, you are going to take care of 
America; if you take care of that family, and by taking care of small 
business I believe we are taking a major step in that direction.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The gentleman knows that in the 
State of Florida, I think it is probably similar to your State, small 
business is the economy of Florida. It is an incredible percentage, and 
yet when we try to help small business again by allowing those 
businesses to keep a little bit more of the money that they generate of 
their money, we are told that we are helping the rich. We are not 
helping the rich. We are helping the small business people in this 
country in the State of Florida that create the economy, that hire the 
people, that pay the wages, that provide the health care, that pay the 
taxes.
  I wish that the opposition would do a couple things. First, that they 
would bring up a plan of their own, which they have not done. Number 
two is that they would talk and discuss the ideas as opposed to just 
throw out labels to see if they will stick that are just not based on 
fact because somebody should tell them that small business people in 
this country are not rich. They are struggling to earn a living. They 
are struggling to pay the rent. They are struggling to keep their 
employees and pay their employees and pay their insurance.
  You better believe it that I am proud that this plan helps those 
businesses. It provides relief for those small businesses, but they do 
not want to talk about the issues and the specifics because they lose 
on that. So, therefore, they have to say it is irresponsible and 
reckless to provide tax relief to small businesses. It is not reckless, 
but they cannot talk about the specifics; therefore, they have to throw 
out words hoping that, like a big PR campaign, people will buy it and 
people will not look at the facts.
  The problem is the American people are very wise.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The Chair is an intelligent man and he has seen the 
Pelosi-Gephardt plan. There is not one. Has the gentleman seen one from 
the other body? There is not one. What do we have? Nine Democrats, I 
had not read the paper in a week, might be up to 10 or 12, nine 
Democrats are running for President of the United States; and I have 
not seen one of them introduce a plan, and I believe at least two of 
those candidates are Members of this body.
  It is good that they are running for President because it gives more 
competition, and more competition is good

[[Page 10656]]

for the political process, like anything else; but while you are a 
Member of this body, should you not be introducing your own jobs tax 
relief plan, growth plan? We do not see it and you would think if there 
are any Democrats who are going to offer a plan, it would certainly be 
the ones who are running for President; but we have not seen it.
  Another thing that is in this plan that I think will help the economy 
is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) calls a 515 plan and 
that is reducing the tax rate and the capital gains rate on dividends 
and capital gains: if you are in the 10 percent bracket, down to five; 
if you are in the 20 percent bracket, down to 15.
  Again, I think it is real common sense that why would you reduce the 
capital gains tax. The idea is if I can sell something and keep more of 
the profit in my pocket, then I am more likely to sell it, and when I 
sell it and that dollar turns over, it stimulates the economy, and it 
is great for small business, great for the American middle-class 
taxpayer.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Also, we have to remember it is 
their money. It is not a gift. That is the thing that I keep hearing. I 
keep hearing it over and over again how government is going to give 
these people this capital gains reduction money. No, no, no.
  All we are talking about is we are going to allow the people who own 
that money to be able to keep it, as opposed to send it to Washington 
so Washington can spend it on all sorts of things. No, we are going to 
allow the people to keep a little bit more of their money. It is not a 
gift. It is not government's money. It is their money.
  We should not be apologetic to want to take less of the people's 
money, in particular when we see some of the waste and the fraud that 
goes on in Washington where we spend money on things that are frankly, 
for example, the debit cards that we have seen recently where people 
have used them to buy and to use them for personal issues, including 
some rather offensive things. We are talking about millions of dollars. 
And so we need to take more money from the people to do more of that? 
No, no. We need to make sure the people keep their money, as much of it 
as possible.
  I for one think we should do a lot more of that and allow people to 
keep even more of their money because that stays in the economy. They 
use it to buy things, to save and provide more jobs. That is the way 
this country was built. That is the greatness of this country, and for 
anybody to say that that is reckless is hard for me to believe.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It does get ridiculous. We are also doing something I 
think that is real important, and that is, we have passed H.R. 6, our 
energy bill. One of the things that small business people need and 
middle-class American tax payers need are lower energy prices, in the 
gasoline for their car and the heat and oil for their house and the 
electric bill for their air conditioner, whatever it is.
  If we could get an abundant, inexpensive, clean energy supply, it 
will really help the economy, really help create jobs; and our energy 
package does lower our dependency on foreign Middle East gasoline and 
fossil fuel, which, of course, gets into national security and all 
other kinds of issues; but it also searches for alternatives like 
hydrogen fuel, fuel cell vehicles, and puts in lots of money for 
research so that we can get off fossil fuel and improve technology for 
smart buildings and energy-efficient houses and structures of all 
nature. That is going to help create jobs, and I am glad that we were 
able to pass that out of the House.
  We need it passed by the other body, and we need to get it to the 
President for signature. The faster we do that, the less dependent we 
will be on fossil fuel, the more energy alternatives there will be.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. That is one of those issues that 
the other side continually criticizes and yet has no answers for. They 
always talk about how dependent we are on foreign oil, and there I 
think we all agree that we need to look at ways to be less dependent, 
which is why this bill is the right legislation at the right time. It 
has some provisions there that I think make so much sense.
  It would allow us to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil and 
also of other energies. It is done in a responsible fashion, to protect 
the environment, which I think is something that is very, very 
important; and once again, it shows what you can do. You can come up 
with answers, reasonable answers that are good for the country that 
will also provide jobs, and that is again a big focus of this 
Republican majority is to provide jobs. Not only now, but particularly 
now; and if you look at the legislation that has come out of this body 
so far, including that one, there is a real strong common denominator.
  Along with the other things that it does, that legislation would also 
provide jobs for the American people, high-paying jobs, by the way, for 
the American people; and, again, I just think we need to continue to 
emphasize that. I for one am not content at how the economy is going. I 
for one think that we need to do more, that we need to incentivize the 
economy. I think the American people agree with that, and clearly, the 
leadership in this House has said that, the President has said that; 
and there are a number of pieces of legislation that go way beyond 
talk.
  These are results. These are things that we have passed that the 
committees have debated, that have been worked on for a long, long 
time; and so talk is cheap as they say, but in this case, in the energy 
bill, in the budget, in the jobs creation bill and so many others, it 
is not talk. It is results.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Another way we are working in the House to help create 
jobs is with a good roads program, good infrastructure. Not everybody 
wants to live in the city, and yet we all have to kind of go to the 
city eventually. Maybe it is for a particular hospital operation, maybe 
just to buy something, maybe for entertainment, maybe for a job; but if 
you can have good roads that connect small towns to the large city, it 
is good for the economy in both places.
  I represent the Port of Savannah and actually all of coastal Georgia, 
but I also have rural areas. I have 29 different counties in the first 
district that I have the honor of representing. One of the things I 
want to do and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) wants to do is 
get a way so that the producer of Vidalia onions can get it overseas 
faster. Agriculture right now, so much of our market is a matter of 
overseas. I think this roads transportation program incentive for 
alternative uses like bicycles and electric cars, I think all that is 
going to help creates jobs, too.
  In Atlanta right now there is a project called Atlantic Station. It 
is right here where I-85 and I-75 split in downtown Atlanta, and it was 
a brownfield. Then they went in there and reclaimed the land and 
cleaned up the polluted areas; and now they are building a regular 
community that will have some high-rise office buildings, some 
condominiums. It will have some retail places, a movie theater, parking 
underground; and the bridge that goes over I-75 and I-85 linking that 
to the traditional downtown part of Atlanta, more of the road is used 
for pedestrians and bicycles than it is actually for trucks and cars.
  That is an example of something under our transportation bill that 
can happen all over the country. I hope that when you are visiting 
Georgia sometime you will have the time to see it because it is 
actually tomorrow's road for tomorrow's economy and tomorrow's 
community, and it is something exciting; but our TEA-21, which is our 
roads bill, again jobs, and it is going to be passed out of the House. 
So we are going to continue to do everything we can for small 
businesses.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Transportation is key for all of 
it, key for all of it. Matter of fact, you look at Florida and the rest 
of the country, but if you look at Florida, if you look at the three 
biggest industries, among them are agriculture, like it is in your 
State, commerce, and tourism. You cannot do any of those without a good 
infrastructure, and the

[[Page 10657]]

gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is working awfully hard coming up 
with a package that I know we will all feel very proud of to make sure 
we have the infrastructure and, again, that also provides jobs. The 
building of those roads provides jobs and then everything that goes 
along with that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I know I can leave my house in Savannah, Georgia, 
basically take maybe two or three roads to get to I-95 and 10 hours 
later I am going to be in Miami, Florida; and if I go north on it, 10 
hours later or depends on how fast you drive, of course, but I can be 
north of Washington, D.C., almost in New York City, can go up to Maine.
  Interstate highways started as national defense, moving our military 
for safety, lots of ideas, but behind the interstate highway system for 
national security, under President Eisenhower; but today, they have 
also been a huge boon to rural economies. Anywhere that there was an 
exit ramp, there is now a truck stop, a gas station, a convenience 
store, a fast food store, a retail outlet; and interstates have created 
tons of jobs in the United States of America.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is amazing how almost every job 
out there, whether we know it or not, is dependent on that 
transportation infrastructure. Without that we would not be able to get 
products in and out, people in and out, nothing. It is totally 
dependent.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say this: on I-95 in coastal Georgia, we have 
something like 55,000 cars a day that go down, and all that we are 
asking them is to stop and leave a little bit of their money in Georgia 
before they go to Florida and spend all of it.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. We thought it was the other way 
around, but there are obviously major infrastructure problems, and we 
clearly need to emphasize the roads; and I know that this Congress will 
be doing that, and the gentleman from Alaska's (Mr. Young) committee, 
that I have the privilege to serve on, is going to be working on that. 
There are areas, whether it is Miami or Collier County where you have 
I-75 as well, that needs a lot of help; and I am optimistic that we 
will be able to do that for the economy's sake, for jobs' sake, and 
also to be able to get goods and people in and out.
  I have an unrelated question, and I do not know if this is the right 
time to ask it. One of the things that has struck me in all the debates 
out there, and I frankly admit it caught me a little bit by surprise is 
when you see the increases that our budget has put for Medicare, for 
example, and Medicaid and also Medicare would drop, and on top of that 
we are doing the drug prescription plan, and yet I keep hearing the 
other side saying that we are actually cutting those programs, which is 
just factually incorrect.
  I have to admit to you that I have never seen a place where 
everywhere except for government where huge increases, certain people 
say are cuts, and I just want to make it very clear that we have not 
cut. Not only have we not cut all those things that we keep hearing 
about, we have increased funding for all those things; and yet I keep 
hearing the Democrats saying that we are cutting.

                              {time}  1700

  The Democrats keep saying we are going to do all of these horrible 
things; we are cutting these funds. That is not what we passed. That is 
not what has been on the table.
  Is that something that is usual here? Do the Democrats always just 
make up the facts? Is their attitude do not let the facts confuse the 
issue?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely. I have been here 10 years; and according to 
the liberal, big-government types in Washington, anything they are not 
happy with they call a cut. There are, frankly, excesses in the Federal 
Government system that should be cut. But it does not matter what it 
is; everybody who is against something, that is a cut. That is a cut. 
Yet veteran spending has increased. Education spending has increased. 
Medicare has increased. Our prescription drug plan, which will help 
seniors get affordable prescription drugs, and it should not be 
partisan, Americans should not have to choose between food and 
medicine, and we all have parents and grandparents who need these 
drugs, and we all hopefully will be seniors ourselves, we do not need 
partisan rhetoric. We need responsible legislation.
  To answer the gentleman's question, it is the standard around here. 
Every time somebody does not like something, it is a cut. It is a tax 
break for the wealthy, or it is going to kill the environment. Or that 
the seniors and the children are going to go starving. One gets used to 
it and kind of moves on.
  I wanted to mention to the gentleman that one of the other things 
that we are doing, not just Medicare, we are trying to come up with an 
affordable and accessible health care. That is very, very important for 
small businesses in America. Small businesses in America now have a 
huge burden when they try to provide health care for their employees. 
Yet when you are in the job market, you have to look not just at the 
salary but at the benefit packages. By making health care more 
affordable and more accessible, that is another way we in Congress are 
going to help create jobs.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I worry if we do not 
do that a lot of people depend on their jobs to provide health care. If 
it gets to where it is not affordable to employers, they are not going 
to provide that benefit.
  Just like it took this leadership to finally forget about all of the 
rhetoric, it took the Republican leadership to finally pass a Medicare 
prescription drug plan. And with all due respect, the Democrats were 
here for 40 years. They always talked about it and never did it. I can 
understand it falling through the cracks 1 or 2 years, but they never 
did it. It took the Republicans to do the prescription drug plan under 
Medicare. I was hoping that those that legitimately wanted to do it for 
40 years, would have said, wow, it is about time, as opposed to 
criticizing it.
  I am confident it will have to be, once again, the Republican 
leadership, the Republican Congress that is going to have to lead to 
make sure we have health care that is accessible, affordable, that is 
quality health care for Americans. I do not know of a more important 
issue for American families and American small businesses, and, 
frankly, for even some of the larger businesses as well than to provide 
good quality, affordable health care. But there again, the Republican 
Party is going to show the leadership that it has shown on every single 
issue from welfare reform to Medicare prescription drug benefits, and 
health care is one of the issues that the Republican Party is showing 
that it can tackle with results.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is too bad that there needs to be popularity in the 
polls to get elected. But this is not about popularity, and leadership 
is not a popularity contest. Sometimes you have to make difficult 
decisions, and there is not going to be 100 percent approval ratings on 
every package. Part of leadership is to move the agenda forward.
  I know that the gentleman has spent a lot of time in support of the 
judicial nomination of Mr. Estrada, and the gentleman has expressed a 
lot of disappointment that the other body has not moved. We create and 
protect jobs by law and order. If people know that there is lower crime 
because there is justice when you are brought in front of a judge and 
there are good judges, we will reduce crime in communities back home. 
Here we have Washington, D.C., a very high crime rate area, they have a 
judicial opening, a vacancy; and yet we have liberals in Washington, 
D.C. who will not let Mr. Estrada get on the bench, and yet he is 
highly qualified. He went to Columbia and Harvard. He actually had the 
same qualifications of a judge who has been supported by the Democrat 
Party, the only difference he is Hispanic. For some reason that is a 
big issue. Some liberals in Washington cannot stand the fact that 
President Bush would have a great Hispanic nomination. What is 
happening with that right now?

[[Page 10658]]


  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is even worse than the gentleman 
states. It is not only that they do not want to vote for him, they do 
not want a vote to take place; and they are doing all of these 
parliamentary procedures to avoid taking a vote on Mr. Estrada. It has 
been a very interesting ride we have been watching. Every excuse in the 
book has been used against this gentleman, and they are just excuses 
because they are not based on facts.
  As we are speaking, there is kind of a pattern emerging. For some 
reason, they do not want to discuss the facts; and, therefore, they 
throw out other things. One of the reasons that they said Mr. Estrada 
should not be a judge on this court in D.C. is he is not qualified 
enough because he had never been a judge before. I would not have a 
problem if that is the standard. It just happens to be on that same 
court those same people that are saying that about Mr. Estrada 
supported other judges that were never judges before that now sit on 
that court. If it is okay for them not to have had previous judicial 
experience to sit on that bench, why is it not all right for Mr. 
Estrada? What is the real reason?
  They say there are certain memoranda that he has. That is the 
criteria. If the Department of Justice does not show us certain 
memoranda that were internal memoranda that were written, that would 
disqualify him. If that is the standard, I do not have a problem; 
except there are seven judges currently that have come out of that same 
office where Mr. Estrada was and those documents were never requested. 
That is clearly not the reason. If that was the reason, the other 
judges would not have been able to move forward.
  There is a real weird double standard with Mr. Estrada, and it is so 
much so they do not even want it to come up for a vote on the floor. I 
do not have a problem with objecting to somebody. I do not have a 
problem with disagreeing with somebody. Thank God we can do that here 
in a free Democratic society. But they do not want to discuss it or 
debate it. They do not want to vote on it. I do not know what their 
agenda is.
  I know that the reasons that they give are not the real reasons, and 
that is a sad statement. It is also particularly sad because Mr. 
Estrada is a man who got here at age 17. He studied and worked. He did 
very well for himself. He went to Columbia and then Harvard Law School 
and graduated magna cum laude. He worked as a clerk for a U.S. Supreme 
Court Justice. He worked as a prosecutor in the State of New York. He 
worked in the Department of Justice under two Presidents, one 
Republican and one Democrat; and all of those people that he worked for 
him said this man is a man of integrity and would be a great judge. Yet 
the Democratic leadership does not want him to even have a vote. That 
is difficult to believe.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Here we are, we have just come through a war, we have 
jobs that we need to create. We have an economy that we need to 
turnaround, and yet there are Members apparently of the other body who 
are content to make one of the most highly qualified judicial nominees 
a big issue. It is such a double standard. If he had not been Hispanic, 
in your opinion, would he have been approved by now?
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I can tell the gentleman without 
any doubt that the reasons that they are going to block even the 
possibility of him having a vote on the floor of the other body to the 
point of using parliamentary procedures that have not been used for a 
candidate of that court before, I can tell the gentleman the reasons 
they are giving are not the real reasons because we have gone through 
them and analyzed them. We have talked about them here on the floor of 
this Chamber, and the bottom line is those are not the real reasons. If 
those are not the real reasons, then what is the real reason?
  It is very sad that a person like Mr. Estrada, who has worked so hard 
and studied so hard and who has lived his little part of the American 
dream, has done what this society has asked him to do and much more, 
has been an example to so many, that his case is not even being allowed 
to be debated on the floor and is not allowed to have a vote. The 
reasons given are not the real reasons.
  It is a sad day for the country. He is 41 years old. He had argued 15 
cases in front of the Supreme Court of the United States before he was 
40. Think about that. It is a shame not to have somebody of that 
quality on the court. It is also a shame for those of us who believe in 
diversity, who believe that one should be judged by your qualifications 
and not by your race.
  I say that because people have used race publicly. They have said 
that one of the reasons that he should not be on there is because of 
his race, and that to me is highly offensive. You should not get a 
position because of your race, and you should not be denied a position 
that you are qualified for because of your race. Yet those are the 
reasons that they have given. They have given others, by the way as 
well, but those have proven to be false. The only one that still 
remains out there is when they have said that Mr. Estrada should not be 
on that court because of his race.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is very disappointing, but I hope that the President 
can work with them and see if he can get something done. The other 
thing is the President was elected, and let him get his team in place. 
It should be that simple.
  I just wanted to cover these topics and wanted to ask the gentleman 
if he had some other topics that he wanted to conclude with.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to 
state one more time that every day that goes by, we have to remember 
there are thousands of men and women in uniform that heroically defend 
our freedoms, and they do so without asking for anything. They do not 
get paid a lot of money. They are not there for the publicity.
  Every day our freedoms are being protected by men and women in 
uniform who are heroes every single day. Sometimes they are asked to 
put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and to even 
sometimes within that scope of protecting us, to protect and liberate 
other people. They have been doing it for generations. They continue 
doing it today.
  Right now as the Iraqi theater is looking good and the Iraqi people 
are free and they are celebrating their freedom, we have to remember 
today there are men and women who are in harm's way. We cannot forget 
that for one single moment, and we have to be grateful and thankful 
that there are people like them who are willing to do one of the 
greatest sacrifices one can ever do to protect our freedoms, and we can 
never thank them enough.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I know for the 34 constituents that I lost 
in Iraq, and I believe the six to 12 in Afghanistan, I am certainly not 
going to forget them; and I am going to do everything I can to help 
promote Iraqi democracy and also jobs in America. We have got a good 
bill on jobs this week. I am looking forward to voting on it and 
supporting it.

                          ____________________