[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15142-15148]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


  DEMOCRATS CHOSE LIBERAL CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

  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 wanted to rise tonight to talk a little 
bit about the upcoming election, which I understand is on everybody's 
minds these days.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position in America 
now that, with 50 States, the Presidential election actually seems to 
boil down to 12 to 18 States that are still in contention. I guess my 
home State of Georgia they have decided is probably going to go to Mr. 
Bush, and your home State of Texas certainly is going to go for Mr. 
Bush. And then there is other States, like California, that will go for 
Mr. Kerry. And then, of course, there is North Carolina, which is wide 
open, despite the fact that Mr. Kerry has chosen a running mate that is 
from that State.
  I think it is interesting as we contrast the two tickets to see what 
one stands for and the other one stands for. But never before has the 
Democrat party chosen the first and fourth most liberal Members of the 
Senate to represent it in the Presidential campaign. It is even more 
liberal than the disastrous Mondale-Ferraro ticket of 1984.
  Here we have, if you think this through a minute, John Kerry scored a 
97 percent liberal rating in 2003. He beat out Barbara Boxer from 
California. He beat out Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton got an 89 
percent liberal rating. And Ted Kennedy. Now, if I was to ask the good 
folks in Texas, well, who is the most liberal Member of Congress, of 
the Senate, they are always going to say Ted Kennedy. Well, not so. 
John Kerry has the 97 percent rating, and Kennedy is sitting at a mere 
88 percent, almost a moderate by John Kerry's standards. And then Tom 
Daschle, a guy we like to curse quite often back home for his stances, 
he is at 80 percent. So here is John Kerry, 97 percent; Tom Daschle, 80 
percent.
  The Florida Times Union pointed out that, ``While Kerry is from the 
North and Edwards is nominally from the South, there is absolutely no 
philosophical balance whatsoever.'' I think that is true.
  Edwards has made a lot of money practicing law, and so he is heavily

[[Page 15143]]

supported by the trial lawyers. In fact, he has received over $11 
million from law firms, and that was per the Kennedy campaign. You can 
find that on www.newsmax.com.
  The trial lawyers are weighing in heavily on this race, and for those 
of us trying to make healthcare more affordable and more accessible, we 
know what a problem frivolous medical lawsuits are. Yet that seems to 
be what John Edwards has made his money on.
  It is interesting what John Kerry said just a couple of months ago, 
in February, during the campaign. He said, ``Edwards says he is the 
only one who can win the South, yet he can't even win his own State.'' 
I guess things have changed.
  It is interesting also, and I will often say about Mr. Bush, he takes 
the NASCAR crowd and the mom and dad with 2\1/2\ kids and two income 
families, people who are out there working.
  There was an article in the New York Post, actually, I think it was 
in USA Today and a number of other newspapers, that showed John Kerry's 
five houses, and they were five mansions, and it had this picture of 
John Kerry snowboarding.
  I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many guys do you know over 60 years 
old who know how to snowboard? There just are not too many of them. Yet 
Kerry is shown very proudly snowboarding. I guess since he bought five 
ski resorts to learn how. He wanted to flaunt it a little bit. But, to 
me, if you have a guy that age and he knows how to snowboard, he has 
not only too much money, but he has too much time on his hands as well.
  So where did these people, men of the people, make their 
announcement? In a union hall? Certainly the Democrats get a lot of 
good support from unions. Did they make it in an African American 
church? They said over and over again, we want the African American 
vote. Did they do it in Boston or North Carolina?
  No, they made the announcement at Mrs. Kerry's estate in 
Pennsylvania. Just for those of you who come from middle-class 
backgrounds, an estate is what rich people call their houses.
  It is interesting that John Kerry wanted to get a middle class, 
regular guy to be his running mate, somebody who was just like us. And 
I guess in his world, a guy like John Edwards, who is worth a mere $50 
million, that is middle-class. After all, when you got a net worth of a 
billion, what is a guy at $50 million?
  So, these two small town guys got together at the estate at 
Pennsylvania and they broke tea and crumpets to tell the masses that 
they were ready to lead the world.
  Well, I will say this: I would rather have my President know NASCAR 
from a church softball game than know Sauvignon Blanc from brie and 
merlot.
  The House Democrats' leadership has announced that one of the 
Democrat campaigns for the fall will be to repeal the Medicare 
prescription drug plan. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever? I do 
not know why Mr. Kerry would want to repeal the Medicare prescription 
drug bill.
  This is the first time in history that low-income seniors are getting 
up to $600 in free prescription drugs. It is the first time that 
seniors are getting about a 50 percent discount, once we get the 
program going, on their prescription drugs, and I think it is a good 
first step. Prescription drug coverage is very, very important to the 
lives of seniors these days.
  If you go into almost any audience, almost any age, and you say how 
many of you in this room have to take or have somebody in your family 
who has to take five to six to seven to eight pills each and every day 
to survive, well, about 70 percent of the hands go up. But if you asked 
that same question to a similar audience back in 1965 when Medicare 
started, no one would raise his hand, because it was not out there 
then.
  Now we have these miracle drugs, and these miracle drugs help us to 
live longer with less pain and do more things, stay active and stay out 
of hospitals and nursing care. And yet we get from the House Democrat 
leader that they want to repeal the prescription drug bill. That does 
not make sense.
  But I guess if you are worth $1 billion like John Kerry, millions of 
dollars like John Edwards, it does not matter to you what the cost of 
it is. They are not the kinds of people who, when the gas goes from 
$1.60 to $1.72, they do not drive around the next block looking for the 
best deal so they can pump it themselves.
  Several House Democrats have asked that the United Nations monitor 
the Presidential elections. Now, you know, you could understand that 
maybe at Tammany Hall, the Chicago machine, or maybe down in Texas when 
LBJ was running against Coke Stevenson, you might want somebody to come 
in to monitor the election.
  But here we are Americans. We do not need the United Nations to come 
in and tell us anything. We want to cooperate with the United Nations 
where it is mutually in the best interests of everyone. But can you 
imagine, Mr. Speaker, Members of the United States Congress writing 
Kofi Annan and asking him to send election monitors to the United 
States of America? I would be embarrassed to go home and, despite my 
partisanship, try to spin that to a constituency. I think that is just 
such an insult to people.
  We are getting a lot of complaints that we are not spending enough on 
intelligence, and yet if you look at what our budget has done since 9/
11, it spiked. What I see as an appropriator is that a lot of people 
are getting their budgets I think in many cases overswelled or 
overgrown because they are saying it is in security.
  But if you look at it, candidate Kerry not only has voted for 
amendments to cut intelligence, they have often authored amendments to 
cut intelligence, and that does not quite make sense to me for somebody 
turning around and saying that we are not spending enough.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go on with this fascinating Democrat 
Presidential ticket, although I will say, while it is fascinating, it 
certainly has no diversity of philosophy whatsoever. If we look at 
where they are on certain things, they voted pretty much down the line 
together. They opposed many of the Bush initiatives on fighting 
terrorism, and they opposed Bush initiatives for reducing taxes. They 
have supported pretty much across the board any kind of pro-abortion 
legislation. Just to give an example, they both voted against the 2001 
and 2003 tax cuts. They voted against the full marriage tax penalty 
relief. They voted against the child tax credit. They voted against 
fully repealing the death tax, and they both voted against the energy 
bill, and they both oppose free trade agreements. Litigation this year 
in America alone will be $233 billion, that is 2.23 percent of our 
entire GDP, yet these are the most pro-trial lawyers candidates that we 
have ever had run for office.
  Mr. Kerry has voted at least six times against banning partial-birth 
abortion. While on the campaign trail, he skipped a vote on passage of 
the partial-birth abortion bill. I always feel strongly that when one 
is in office, one is paid to vote and one should be there for their 
votes, but he skipped a heck of a lot of them.
  He was one of 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage 
Act in 1996, which would have banned the Federal recognition of gay 
marriage and same-sex partners. And in 2003, he said he might 
eventually support gay marriage if it became publicly acceptable. Well, 
I guess that is kind of couching his words.
  Edwards said in response to President Bush's proposed constitutional 
amendment, I am against the President's constitutional amendment on 
banning gay marriage.
  I am going to skip around. There are a lot of things here. But our 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), has actually written 
something about the qualifications of a Vice President. The gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence) has a BA in American history from Hanover 
College, so he is a bit of a historian. But he looked into what was the 
average years of experience that Vice Presidents had, and he

[[Page 15144]]

found out that out of 46 previous Vice Presidents, only three engaged 
in public service for less than 10 years prior to being elected. One of 
them was a Secretary of Agriculture during the Great Depression, 
another was a Governor of Indiana, and another was a war hero who 
turned Congressman and was offered the mission to Spain by President 
Pierce. So these guys have all had a lot of experience.
  The Democrat nominee John Edwards has not served a single term in one 
Chamber of one branch of our Federal Government. If elected, his 6 
years, or 5 at this time, I do not think we could give the guy 6 when 
he is not there all the time, would represent one of the fewest years 
of preparations to serve as President of the United States as anybody 
has ever had. His experience would be 20 percent of the average years 
of experience of previous Vice Presidents. The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence) has given us a pretty good list.
  Now, what is interesting is we are not going to hear much from the 
media about this. The media is going to ask him such tough questions 
as: Is it true your dad worked in a mill? Whereas when Dan Quayle was 
appointed by Mr. Bush Senior, all kinds of questions: Senator, what 
makes you think you are qualified to become President in the event 
something unfortunate should happen to Mr. Bush? What is it that would 
make you qualified? He spent 12 years in Congress with a special 
emphasis on national security work, but that was not enough. What 
executive experience do you have? I once worked in the Governor's 
office in Indiana, Quayle said. And I would admit, not that much. 
Reporters asked about Quayle's nonservice in Vietnam. Others asked if 
Quayle had any connection to the Iran-Contra scandal. Others asked 
about a lobbyist who apparently donated to a golf trip that he had, 
even though there was no other connection. That is what they wanted.
  Then they asked questions about his money: Senator Quayle, it has 
been quoted that your net worth is $20 million, is that correct? And if 
so, isn't this going to put off the blue color vote and the low-income 
vote. One reporter said to Mr. Quayle: ``Since you don't want the 
Republican Party to seem like the party for the rich, why pick another 
millionaire for a running mate?
  All of these I would say, they are fair questions; but it is 
interesting that the press is not going to ask these questions of the 
Democrat candidate. We can say liberal media, but of course that would 
be being redundant.
  One would have to say that Edwards in 2004 does not measure up to 
Quayle in 1988. Quayle had 12 years in Congress. He ran for the House 
in 1976 and won. He was reelected in 1978. He ran for the Senate in 
1980, at that time beating Democrat Senator Birch Bayh. He was 
reelected in 1986, winning 61 percent of the vote which, by the way, 
was the largest landslide ever in the Indiana Senate race.
  For his part, Edwards has never run for public office before winning 
the 1998 North Carolina race, and he only got 51 percent in that. As 
the 2004 race approached, Edwards faced very iffy prospects with 
reelection; and we know that our colleague, Richard Burr, was running 
for that seat with or without Edwards as the incumbent, and all the 
pollsters and experts said this guy is vulnerable. He has not been 
home. And as for money, the reporter who asked if Quayle's net worth 
was $200 million, he was way off. It turns out that Quayle's net worth 
at the time was less than $1 million.
  Now, I know that his wife had wealth and I am not sure how the trust 
reads, so I am not going to say that is just $1 million versus $50 
million or whatever Edwards is worth, but Edwards is a very successful 
trial lawyer who has led the life of Riley, and I think to say that he 
is just a regular middle-class guy is silly, if nothing else.
  Edwards' youthful experience and the Vice President's age and 
demeanor, the two men were not that far apart in age when they were 
chosen for the job. Edwards is 51. Cheney was 59 when George Bush chose 
him as his running mate. And if we go on down the list, it is 
interesting that the questions and the scrutiny that Dan Quayle had to 
live up to, we are not hearing anything from the folks in the media in 
terms of Edwards, and we hope that we will.
  Jumping around a little bit and getting back to Kerry, some of his 
more outstanding votes of note lately was Kerry voted against the $87 
billion to fund American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that 
included programs like additional body armor. And, Mr. Speaker, we have 
been to Iraq and Afghanistan. We know how important that is. We heard 
lots of complaints by folks, making sure that everybody had all the 
body armor that they wanted. In fact, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader, tried to make a big issue that we 
did not have enough body armor going around, and yet it is her party's 
nominee who voted against it.
  And then in 1994, this is very disturbing, right after the first 
attack on the World Trade Center, this was when Mr. Clinton was 
President and chose to not do anything, or not do much about it, Kerry 
had proposed to gut the Select Committee on Intelligence budget by $6 
billion, and that was right after the first attack on the World Trade 
Center. If we go back to 1990, Mr. Kerry wanted to cut $10 billion from 
the defense budget.
  The other thing, and I do not have the quote right in front of me, 
but Mr. Lieberman who ran against Mr. Kerry said that we do not need a 
flip-flopper. And there is all kinds of evidence of him flip-flopping.
  There are some ways, though, a group called the Black Five, and I am 
not sure what that is, but they came up with a way to decide if you 
should vote for John Kerry. They said, How do you know for sure, and 
one way to do it is you could take this test. If you believe that the 
AIDS virus is spread by the lack of Federal funding, you might want to 
vote for John Kerry. If you believe that the same school system that 
cannot teach fourth graders how to read is somehow the best qualified 
to teach those same kids all about sex, you might want to vote for John 
Kerry. If you believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans 
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands 
of Chinese Communists, you might want to vote for John Kerry. If you 
believe there was no art before Federal funding, John Kerry is your 
guy.
  If you believe that global temperatures are less affected by 
cyclical, documented changes in the Earth's climate and more affected 
by Americans driving SUVs; I got a laugh when I saw the SUVs. What was 
it that Kerry was speaking to, Mr. Speaker? Who was the crowd? It was a 
Detroit group. I think they were auto workers or maybe a chamber of 
commerce in the Detroit area, and he was saying, I am proud that we 
have SUVs. And actually, it is interesting, he had a fleet of cars.
  I guess if you have five mansions around the world, you need a fleet 
of cars because, heaven knows, you would not want to rent. By the way, 
on that subject, his main residence, this man of the people we are 
talking about, his main residence in Beacon Hill, Massachusetts, is 
valued at over $6.6 million. That is his main residence. I do not know 
if my colleagues know this story, but one time Mrs. Kerry got some 
parking tickets for parking over in front of a fire hydrant. Now, what 
would you do if you were a liberal Democrat? Under that circumstance, 
you would think, I would pay the fine. In fact, I would send a little 
more because I believe in government, and I want to help subsidize 
government. This is a great chance. No. Instead, they simply moved the 
fire hydrant.
  Now, I am telling my colleagues, that is some serious money. When 
your wife gets a ticket for parking in front of a fire hydrant and you 
have the fire hydrant moved, you have some money. But that is the 
approach to government.
  They also, though, have a 90-acre family estate near Pittsburgh. That 
is valued at $3.7 million. Then they have a ski vacation home in Idaho 
that is a $5 million job purchased in 1988, and then there is the 
waterfront estate in Nantucket Harbor. This beachfront property is 
valued at about $9.1 million, and Kerry tools around the sound

[[Page 15145]]

in his 42-foot power boat that is worth $695,000. What a guy of the 
people. I mean, I can just see him driving around in the pickup truck, 
going down to the little cafeteria down the street and joining the 
coffee club and talking about how gas prices jumped from $1.75 to 
$1.78, and how that is going to set them back.

                              {time}  2115

  And of course here in Washington a 23-room townhouse in Georgetown 
valued at $4.7 million, I do not know why the guy wants to move in the 
White House. That is certainly a cut in lifestyle, although I think it 
has got a pretty cool plane and your own police force and things he 
would like.
  Getting back to this Blackfive thing, if one is against capital 
punishment but supports abortion on demand, John Kerry is your guy. If 
one believes that businesses create oppression and government creates 
prosperity, John Kerry is your guy. If one believes that hunters do not 
care about nature but loony activists in Seattle do, John Kerry is your 
guy. If one believes that self-esteem is more important than actually 
doing something to earn it, John Kerry is your guy.
  There is a number of other tests that this group has, and I might 
just recommend that people look at www.blackfive.net and just take the 
test for themselves.
  We have been joined, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mario Diaz-Balart), and I wanted to yield the floor for him.
  And is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) with us? Well, I 
apologize for overlooking the gentleman. I thought the gentleman just 
wanted to hear some brilliance and was waiting for the next speaker to 
give it.
  Let me yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  When I was listening to the gentleman a little while ago and he was 
mentioning about how Mr. Kerry tries to portray himself as one of the 
regular folk and he was talking about how he, frankly, is one of the 
very privileged folk, I think that kind of explains, though, some of 
his votes and some of the things that he says after some of his votes.
  If the gentleman will recall that he voted against President Bush's 
tax relief plan in 2001 and also in 2003. By the way, that tax relief 
plan, i.e., in other words, government taking a little bit less of the 
people's money, it is not a gift that the government has given, just 
the government taking a little bit less of people's money, that is the 
reason why we are finally now in this economic upturn. And, again, they 
might try to scream and complain, but the bottom line is everybody has 
had to recognize that, because of that, the economy is doing much 
better.
  But then since it is working and since more people are getting jobs 
and since over a million jobs have been created in the last year 
because of the President's leadership, and then they said, well, but 
the President's tax cuts were tax cuts on the rich. And, Mr. Speaker, 
again, I am in awe of what I hear up here sometimes. I am new here. 
This is my first term, and I am sometimes in awe of what I hear up 
here.
  The tax cuts that the President proposed and this Congress passed, 
Senator Kerry, now, he would know what a tax cut on the rich is, 
obviously, because he is very wealthy, and nothing wrong with that, but 
I do not know about the State of Massachusetts. It is a different 
world. We know that the State of Massachusetts is a different world. It 
is the State that gave us John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
  But, in Florida, everybody dies. In Florida, eventually everybody 
dies, and one of the tax cuts that this President supported, proposed 
and Senator Kerry voted against is the death tax. Again, I do not know 
about Massachusetts, but in the State of Florida not only the wealthy 
die.
  One of the tax cuts that Senator Kerry voted against, saying now that 
it is a tax cut on the rich, was the marriage penalty relief. Now, I do 
not know about other parts of the country, but in the State that I am 
privileged to represent here in Congress, which is Florida, not only 
the wealthy get married. Working people get married as well. And yet 
Senator Kerry voted against it, saying, oh, that is a tax cut on the 
rich.
  He voted against the child tax credit, for example. Now, again, I do 
not know about the State that he represents, the State where maybe 
everybody has nine houses that are worth millions of dollars, but in 
Florida where people work awfully hard, and I am pretty sure that 
throughout the country they do, not only do the wealthy get married, 
not only do the wealthy have children, not only do the wealthy die.
  A colleague of ours in Florida said that at least one would think 
that we could agree that there should be no taxation without 
respiration, at least, but, no, Senator Kerry believes that that is 
wrong, that we have to tax people when they get married, we have to tax 
people if they have children, we have to tax people if they have small 
businesses, and, yes, we even have to tax people after they are dead, 
after they are dead. And yet, Mr. Speaker, he keeps saying that those 
are tax cuts on the rich.
  I think maybe the explanation is what the gentleman was saying a 
little while ago, that he lives in a different place. I do have to 
admit, though, because I have seen a lot of things and I have heard a 
lot of things that to my point of view just do not make sense, like 
these are tax cuts on the rich, these tax cuts that I just mentioned, 
but maybe it is just a different world. I have to admit, though, that I 
give Senator Kerry credit, and I have heard this time and time again. 
One has got to give him credit for something that I, this humble 
servant, believed was impossible. When Senator Kerry has made Ted 
Kennedy the conservative senator of Massachusetts and when we look at 
the rankings, Senator Kerry is even more liberal, even more of an 
extreme left-winger than Senator Ted Kennedy. I did not think that was 
possible. Only Senator Kerry has been able to do so.
  And he has, by the way, picked a very charming, very eloquent man as 
his running mate, who is the fourth most liberal Member of the Senate. 
He could have gone and picked a number of people out there. No, he had 
to pick somebody that was almost as liberal as himself.
  Mr. Speaker, in that sense, the ticket of McGovern and Shriver, not 
since McGovern has there been a more left-wing extreme point of view 
put forward by the Democratic ticket as the ticket that is now in front 
of the American people. And, again, when they voted against repealing 
the death tax, when they voted to increase the child tax credit, in 
other words, when they voted against lowering taxes on families for 
their children, when they voted against the full marriage penalty 
relief, it goes to show us that, yes, it is absolutely true, hard to 
believe, that that ticket now is more left-wing and more liberal than 
even Ted Kennedy. It is hard to believe, but, yes, that ticket is more 
left-wing, more radical, more liberal, or at least equally to the 
ticket that McGovern headed in 1972, I believe, before my time, but it 
is hard to see a more left-wing extremist ticket, except for the one 
that the Democratic party has put forward.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to underscore 
that. I have some of Mr. Edwards' rating groups, and the gentleman has 
established already that Mr. Kerry is more liberal than Mr. Kennedy, 
with a 97 percent liberal rating compared to Mr. Kennedy's 88 percent. 
But here was NARL, which is the National Abortion Rights League, they 
gave Mr. Edwards 100 percent for the last 4 years in a row. The 
National Right to Life has given him a 0. The AFL-CIO prounion vote, 
100 percent for the last 3 years. The Federal Employees Union, 91 
percent, then 100 percent, 100 percent.
  National Taxpayers Union, Mr. Edwards, 22 percent, but that is up 
from 12 percent 3 years ago; Americans for Tax Reform, 0 percent, down 
from 5 percent last year; and then Citizens Against Government Waste, 
13 percent in terms of being probusiness. The National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, small businesses, has given Mr.

[[Page 15146]]

Edwards a 0 percent. Privately, if one shows up, they get a 70 percent 
on their rating, but he has got a 0 percent. U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
has given Mr. Edwards 15 percent.
  Why are these important? These are important because these are folks 
who help job creation, job impact, and if we are interested in jobs, we 
do not want somebody with a 15 percent U.S. Chamber rating and a 0 
percent National Federation of Independent Businesses.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, when 
one sees that, so he clearly likes raising taxes. He even supported a 
50 percent gas tax, per gallon gas tax increase. Now I do not know 
about the gentleman, but in the State of Florida, gas is relatively 
expensive right now, and if the people out there think gas is too 
cheap, no problem, they have got a good person to vote for in November. 
That is Senator Kerry, who, again, has supported a 50 percent per 
gallon gas tax increase.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And at the same time blocked the energy bill that would 
have given us more affordable energy in alternative energy sources, 
fuel cell, hydrogen cell research and a lot of good stuff. He helped 
block that bill because the travelers did not like it.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. And, again, there are certain 
things that just boggle the mind. For example, he voted for giving the 
President authorization to go after Saddam Hussein, to take out Saddam 
Hussein, and then when our troops are on the field and when they are 
giving their all, including, unfortunately, their lives to protect our 
freedoms, to do the job that Senator Kerry himself voted to authorize, 
then he votes against the $87 billion to give them the equipment that 
they need on the field. That is that famous quote when he says, well, 
``I voted for it before I voted against it.''
  I guess he must have been embarrassed at his vote, but it gets worse 
now. There are so many reasons why he is the most extreme liberal left-
winger since McGovern. He proposed gutting the intelligence budget, the 
intelligence budget by $6 billion, not long after the first World Trade 
Center bombing.
  And so, again, we see some of these votes, and we just do not 
understand. How is it possible? We never know where he is today. If we 
ask him today, he may have changed four or five times, but he clearly 
supported going into Iraq but then does not support giving our troops 
the equipment that they need.
  Now, that should not surprise us, because years earlier he tried to 
cut the intelligence budget, to really destroy the intelligence budget, 
and I have got some quotes of his that are just unbelievable. In the 
1997 Congressional Record, May 1 quote, he said, ``Now that the 
struggle,'' the Cold War, in other words, ``is over, why is it that our 
vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?'' Excuse me? Why are we 
spending so much money on intelligence?
  Well, we know what happens when we do not prepare, when we are not 
strong and when we do not have adequate intelligence.
  Again, these are things that boggle the mind, and maybe part of the 
explanation is because he has seven homes. God bless him. I do not have 
a problem with that, but maybe that is why he thinks that cutting taxes 
on married people is cutting the tax on the rich. Maybe that is why he 
thinks when taxes are cut on people who die, estate taxes, that that is 
cutting taxes on the rich. Maybe that is why he believes that cutting 
taxes to small business is cutting taxes on the rich. It is not. It is 
cutting taxes on real American people, and when taxes are cut, we do 
not give anything. Government is not giving a gift. Government, all it 
is doing is taking a little bit less of the people's money. Is that 
wrong? No. It is the right thing to do morally, and it is also helping 
our economy.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let us yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) a minute. He wanted to talk.
  Mr. GINGREY. Well, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Georgia 
and the gentleman from Savannah for yielding a little time and 
especially since I was actually not scheduled to be part of this 
colloquy. I know there are a number of other Members here who want to 
join in the discussion.
  But I was just back in my office doing a little paperwork and 
catching up on some things and watching C-SPAN, and as the gentleman 
from Georgia and the gentleman from Florida began to discuss some facts 
about the presumptive Democratic nominee, Mr. Kerry, that it is 
important that the American people know I felt compelled to come down 
and hopefully not take more than 3 or 4 minutes, because there is 
something that I want my colleagues in this Chamber to know, and 
hopefully they will share this with their constituents, the American 
people.
  See, there is one thing, only one that I can think of, really, that I 
share that I have in common with the presumptive Democratic nominee, 
Mr. Kerry. We both share the same religion. We are both Roman 
Catholics. And, Mr. Speaker, this is what I want to share with my 
colleagues. The presumptive Democratic nominee for President, he 
recently made two very interesting statements. Mr. Kerry, a constant 
supporter of abortion rights throughout his whole 20-year career in 
this United States Senate, now says he believes that life actually does 
begin at the moment of conception.
  Let me repeat that. He believes that life actually does begin at the 
moment of conception.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Kerry continues to insist that he is ideologically 
pro-choice because of his firm belief in ``separation of church and 
State.''
  Now, I assume Mr. Kerry is referencing the establishment clause of 
the Constitution, which declares that our government shall establish no 
State religion and that citizens are free to worship God in the manner 
of their individual choosing. Indeed, freedom of religion, not freedom 
from religion.

                              {time}  2130

  Madam Speaker, the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence 
and guaranteed by our Constitution, so it would seem that John Kerry 
would, by his own words, believe that life begins at conception, would, 
through his pro-choice stance, be in direct contrast to the most 
important guarantee of our charter documents.
  Mr. Kerry goes on to say that his Roman Catholic belief that the 
moment of conception is the same moment life is created, that should 
not be imposed on those whose faith through other religions do not 
share that same belief. He should not impose that other on other 
religions because they may not share that same belief.
  Madam Speaker, I wonder, I wonder which particular religion Mr. Kerry 
is referencing. In my 11th district of Georgia I have attended services 
at many churches, synagogues, houses of worship of different 
denominations. All of the religions I have encountered firmly, firmly 
believe in the sanctity of life which God creates at the moment of 
conception.
  Now, Mr. Kerry recently spoke from Pittsburgh just the other day 
about giving kids a chance at full citizenship by strengthening Early 
Start and Head Start. Madam Speaker, the best way to guarantee our 
youth a chance at full citizenship is by guaranteeing their 
constitutional unalienable right to life.
  Madam Speaker, I would remind Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic 
Presidential nominee that almost 40 million children since the 1973 Roe 
v. Wade decision have been denied an Early Start or Head Start. Indeed, 
they were given no start whatsoever.
  So, Madam Speaker, I would hope those who wish to become the 
President of our Nation would have the courage to stand up for their 
belief in life at conception regardless of how recently they may have 
come to this conclusion. Many Presidential hopefuls try to have their 
cake and eat it too. We have been hearing a lot of that discussion here 
tonight, and I agree with it; but you absolutely cannot have it both 
ways on such an important issue as the sanctity of life. And I thank my 
colleagues for giving me an opportunity

[[Page 15147]]

to come down and share that with you and with the other Members of this 
body on both sides of the aisle.
  I am going to talk about that more and more. I think we need to make 
sure that we understand. How in the world could someone be for life and 
against life, be for the sanctity of life at conception and be pro-
choice? It is incongruous. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) for allowing me to share this evening with my colleagues.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for joining us. We have been 
joined by another physician, member of the House, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), and wanted to point out, Madam Speaker, that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was a practicing OB-GYN until his 
election to Congress.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) for yielding to me this evening.
  I felt compelled to come and talk a little bit about the issues this 
evening. We have been hearing a lot about the relative preparedness or 
unpreparedness for the second highest office in this land to which they 
have been nominated, and that is actually not what I wanted to speak 
about this evening; but I would rather speak about the experience or 
the preparation that that individual does have, and that is in his 
profession as a trial lawyer.
  The Wall Street Journal on Thursday of last week in its lead 
editorial, the last paragraph says, ``Our runaway tort system is a 
genuine problem that is causing economic harm, and far more 
importantly, it is distorting the cause of justice. American politics 
typically responds to such problems, but in this case, the power of the 
tort bar centered on Democratic Senators has blocked even the most 
modest fixes. If this compromise fails this year, we will know for sure 
that this issue deserves to be joined until the Presidential 
campaign.''
  That is the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial from the end of last 
week.
  As far as the issue of the medical civil justice system or the 
medical liabilities system in this country, we have had some 
legislation passed in this House twice in the past year and a half, but 
the action has been blocked on the other side of the Capitol. And what 
is the cost, Madam Speaker, what is the cost of doing nothing in this 
regard?
  Well, between 1994 and 2001, the typical medical liability award 
increased by 176 percent to $1 million. That is from ``Liability of 
Medical Malpractice: Issues and Evidence''; Joint Economic Committee, 
May of 2003.
  The National Journal cited in the issue just last week that $230 
billion was the cost to this country of the medical civil justice 
system last year; and of that $230 billion, about one-fifth went to 
compensate patients for actual damages. About an equal amount, about a 
fifth, a little less than that, 19 percent, was the payment for the 
trial lawyers' part of that, a fifth went to the insurance companies, 
and one quarter of that amount went to pay the exploding costs of non-
economic damages.
  The American Medical Association in its Medical Liability Reform Fact 
Sheet last year said $60 to $108 billion per year would be saved in 
health care costs by placing a reasonable limit on noneconomic damages. 
Not eliminating them entirely, but placing a reasonable limit. 
``Defensive medicine is a potentially serious social problem. If fear 
of liability drives health care providers to administer treatments that 
do not have worthwhile medical benefits, then the current liability 
system may generate inefficiencies much larger than the costs of 
compensating malpractice claimants.'' This may lead to reductions of 5 
to 9 percent in medical expenditures without an increase in the quality 
of medical care.
  The study by McClellan in 1996 in 1996 dollars estimated that $50 
billion a year could be saved in the Medicare system by the elimination 
of some practices of defensive medicine. There is a significant human 
impact as well. Doctors are leaving practice, and we are losing that 
critical human capital that we as citizens of this country and of our 
States have paid to educate.
  There is a perinatologist in my community who left his practice about 
a year after entering practice because he could no longer afford the 
six-figure liability premium. He went to work for Perot Systems, a 
medical information systems consultant; but the fact is, he is not 
practicing perinatology. The State paid for his education. The State 
paid for his education in medical school and residency, and now we will 
never see the benefit of that payment because this individual was 
driven from his practice by the high cost of the liability insurance.
  At Methodist Medical Center in Dallas last year, we lost a 
neurosurgeon because he could not afford the six-figure liability 
premium that he was faced with, putting the whole trauma system in the 
north Texas network at risk.
  Madam Speaker, even more importantly than that, the cost of the human 
capital that is now being extracted on our youngest citizens and 
citizens as they contemplate what careers to pursue, individuals in 
undergraduate school and medical school and in high school, look at the 
medical profession and turn away because of the crisis in medical 
liability, and it is so unnecessary. Some reasonable fixes have been 
proposed by this House. They have been blocked on the other side of the 
Capitol; and, unfortunately, one of the individuals who is at the root 
of blocking those commonsense reform is now the nominee for the second 
highest office in this land.
  So I would say I am not so much concerned about the experience that 
he lacks in the administrative side of the government. I am far more 
concerned about the type of experience he brings from the plaintiffs' 
bar. I do not believe that this issue can get a fair hearing with that 
individual sitting in the second highest office of the land.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us 
tonight and also for giving your perspective. I wanted to ask the 
doctor a few questions, if I could, before he leaves. How long did the 
gentleman practice medicine?
  Mr. BURGESS. For 25 years.
  Mr. KINGSTON. What was your specialty?
  Mr. BURGESS. Obstetrics and gynecology.
  Mr. KINGSTON. In that field, how big is the problem of malpractice as 
you the gentleman know it firsthand?
  Mr. BURGESS. It is causing doctors to leave the practice of medicine. 
There is no question about it. I saw it myself.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and I are perhaps the poster 
children for that. We left our practices and came to the relative 
safety of the United States Congress to avoid the pernicious medical 
liability climate. In south Texas along the Rio Grande Valley, it is a 
crisis of epic proportions. And until we passed some State reforms this 
past year, in September of last year, doctors were leaving the State in 
significant numbers. Malpractice insurers were leaving the State. We 
had gone from 17 insurers to four; and the policies were very, very 
restricted that were being written.
  Since we put in some very, very basic reforms, some very, very basic 
curtailments of noneconomic damages, the insurers in the State of Texas 
have now increased to 12, insurance prices have come down 
significantly. The crisis has been adverted to some degree in Texas, 
but it remains a nationwide problem.
  Mr. KINGSTON. As the gentleman talks to physicians, if someone said, 
name the top three problems physicians are faced with right now, would 
malpractice be one of them?
  Mr. BURGESS. Certainly that would be at the top of the list. 
Reimbursement rates from HMOs is going to be second. The slow rate of 
payment from insurance companies and HMOs would probably rank as third.
  Mr. KINGSTON. So unless we address the frivolous medical liability 
suits in our country, the cost of medicine will skyrocket and the 
availability is going to shrink?
  Mr. BURGESS. I think access is going to be severely, severely 
restricted. A woman who is the head of

[[Page 15148]]

the Columbia University residency program, an OB-GYN, Columbia 
University has a very good residency program, perhaps second only to 
Parkland Hospital where I did my residency, this individual told me 
that currently they were accepting people into their residency program 
that 5 years ago they would not have even interviewed. That is, the 
quality of applicant has dropped off so significantly because people 
simply fear this issue. They see no reason to enter a life where there 
is going to be this much uncertainty. So it is really extracting a high 
toll as far as the availability of our future providers, not just what 
is happening right now, but what is happening for our children and our 
children's children.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. If we have the Edwards-Kerry 
trial lawyer ticket, we probably will not have any serious medical 
liability reform, would we?
  Mr. BURGESS. That is my firm belief as well.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I think we had a good discussion here 
today. I notice my friends on the other side of the aisle are here 
chomping at the bit and I know are eagerly awaiting freedom of speech, 
equal time; and my friend from California is grabbing the mike right 
now for a discussion.

                          ____________________