Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few remarks about our great friend and departing parliamentarian. If Members think about the world we live in today and all the technology and all the feats of engineering, we take so much for granted. We get in our cars, and our cars are almost a mechanical and a computer platform now, and we never marvel, we never question. We just flip a switch, and we expect something to happen. We take it all for granted.

That is somewhat how we are as we come down to the floor of the House. As 435 independent contractors, we come down here and we expect bills to be on the table, we expect to have a learned staff who can ask why a certain amendment was germane and why it was allowed and why it was not allowed. We expect to have some professionals who can keep their eyes on our distinguished brethren and sisters on the Committee on Rules, for example.

We need a neutral body as our motions flow that can say this is how the procedure must go on. And I think the House should be very proud of what Charlie and his entire team have done and all of the staff members that make this body click. Lord knows what would happen if we did not have this. We might look like the U.S. Senate.

I do not know if my words will be taken down, Charlie. I know there is a whole list of things I am not supposed to say. For example, I cannot turn to my friend, David Obey or John Lewis and say, John. I have to say my distinguished friend from. Right now, this is like fingernails going against a blackboard. He keeps Members like me who can be somewhat flippant, who might say the wrong thing, who may deserve to have words taken down. He is the guy who says I may agree with what he just said about the fellow Member of the House, I might agree with his politics, I might disagree, but I am going to stick with the rule books. We need to have somebody like that. And he keeps people like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) watching that clock.

There was a great TV commercial of Motel 6 years ago. Tom Bodett made famous the line, ``I am going to keep the light on for you.'' I always liked that because my mom would keep the light on for us when we were teenagers going home because the light represented security, the light represented home and wisdom and fairness. Charlie has kept the light on for all of us for many, many years, a source of wisdom, a source of fairness, a bright spot no matter what the legislative agenda of the day was; and we thank Charlie for all of his hard work.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment, and not easily.

I think it is a very important amendment. This is a very important debate, but as we look at BRAC as we go into it, and I want to say also I have five military installations in my district. I think I have more military than any other Member of the House, I am not certain about that, but I am in there, we have got to let the Pentagon, we have got to let the Defense Department run the military.

We cannot do it in Congress. This is not our job. We get involved in it. It is very, very important to support their efforts and work with them, but we also have other issues, Medicare, education, Social Security, taxes, that we have to delve into, and right now, we have a lot of Members delving into the military.

BRAC was set up to be nonpolitical, to be fair. In our office, we work on military issues at our bases, not during BRAC years, but every single year. We work on issues of the cost return on the bases, environmental issues, encroachment issues, military construction issues, community support. We work with our military all the time.

If Members of Congress want to help the bases in their districts, they need to be doing it year around, not just during an election year and on the eve of BRAC.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just wanted to touch base on this amendment and speak against the substitute.

The reason I want to do that is because the substitute actually increases taxes on small businesses in order to get to their tax credit. But more importantly, the tax credit is not a permanent fix. What we believe the young families need today is a permanent child tax credit so they can count on this for many years to come.

I am a father of four. I spend a lot of my time in the carpool line. In fact, I just left the House immediately after the last vote to drive my son to a Little League game. And after this last vote, I am going to drive back to the Little League game, and that is not untypical of working parents today. Parents are juggling money trying to raise these children. And often you think it is time for mom and dad to get a little relaxation. Well, they cannot do that because they have to put the money into new tires or a new dryer, children's braces, whatever.

This makes it helpful and affordable for families, who are often in the sandwich generation somewhere between having dependent children and dependent parents. I believe that the Camp bill, the Thomas bill, the Ways and Means Committee mark in its present form is a good bill.

I think that the Democrats have raised a lot of good points, and I share a lot of their concerns about our growing debt. I think it is time we start bringing that up, and I am glad that they are doing it. But I also feel when you reduce taxes, you put it back in the pocket of those who earn it, and they are going to go out and buy more hamburgers or clothes, more CDs. And when they do, small businesses are going to react. They are going to expand their inventory and hire more people, and it is going to be an extremely important multiplier to the economic engine of our society. Or as Adam Smith said, It is the invisible hand at work. We want to cut the budget, but we should not start with taking more money out of the taxpayers' pocket. We should start by overseeing some of these Federal Government programs and eliminating some of them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time.

I want to talk about this as a former insurance agent. I sold property and casualty insurance to small businesses all over Georgia before I came to Congress. I was not in the health care business, but quite frequently my clients would come to me and say, Can you help us with health care? Can you point us in the right direction? So I have some knowledge of it on the ground from the perspective of a pet store, a barber shop, a brick mason, small employers with 5 to 15 people.

What their problem is, they have been priced out of the health care business because we insist through state-mandated benefit that they have to buy a Cadillac insurance plan. They cannot buy a stripped down Toyota; they have to buy the Cadillac with all of the options. That is what we are doing. Because of that, that brick mason with seven employees says to his employees, We cannot do health care any more. If your wife or somebody in your family cannot put you on as a dependent, you do not have any health care.

What this plan does is it gets uninsured employees back in the business of health insurance, those employees who are making too much money for Medicaid, for example, and workers comp is only going to cover them on the job. This gives them access to the health care. It makes it affordable because that brick mason, that pet store, that barber shop can combine with other similar businesses all around the country, and they can go into the marketplace with the economy of scale, the buying clout which the GEs and big unions have, and then they can have affordable health care. It gives relief from some of these mandated benefits. A mandated benefit is not necessarily bad; but if you require someone to have pediatric shots, nobody is going to say that is a bad idea, it makes sense, but it might not apply to you or you might want to assume that risk or cost yourself.

We are saying to these employers and employees you have no option, you have to buy this because we are the government and we know what is best for you. This gives them a commonsense approach, a great compromise so they can afford health care again. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are proud of saying, which they say often, that they oppose the war, but support the troops. That is kind of like saying the tank is not empty, but the car is out of gas. It just does not make any sense. How do you support the troops if you are opposed to what they are doing?

Of course, then again, the statements by their party leader said, I voted ``yes'' before I voted ``no'' on the supplemental appropriations bill that would have given the troops the armor and the ammunition and the food and the supplies they need, but that is Democrat thinking.

When the statue of Saddam Hussein was being pulled down and celebrated, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, well, we could have pulled that statue down for a lot less money. I am sure the U.N. would have gotten around to it eventually through their, what, another resolution? We did 17; maybe one more resolution and the statue would have come on down.

Mr. Speaker, winning a war is not easy, and when you have leading Democrats saying the war is unwinnable, it sends a very bad signal to the troops whom they allege to support. That is not what we need.

Right now what we need is unity, national unity, getting behind the cause, getting behind the soldier in the foxhole. Let us think of him and put politics aside.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that with troops in the field, the Democrats are now going out sending a signal this war is unwinnable. With young men in the hospital, wounded, amputees, they are saying this war is unwinnable. With families and Americans mourning the dead, the Democrats are saying this war is unwinnable. We often hear from Democrats, Well, I support the troops, but I am against the war.

Mr. Speaker, I have never understood that. I have the honor of representing the Third Infantry Division and five military installations in my district, and that just does not sell to the soldiers in the field that, well, I support you individually, but what you are doing is wrong and I am against it.

This is not the time for our country to be sending mixed signals abroad that we are a divided country and that some of us want to cut and run. The best thing we can do to honor those who are wounded, to honor those who have lost their lives and their family and to stand beside the nearly 200,000 troops we have in Iraq and Afghanistan is say, You are doing the right thing. This cause is noble and it is winnable. We stand united behind you. Even though it is an election year, America comes first.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak in general of the marriage tax penalty relief bill which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has worked so hard for so many years to pass in Congress.

The amendment offered here by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) might have some merits, but I also am aware there are so many people who are opposed to this legislation on the other side of the aisle, that sometimes you wonder if these amendments are not being offered in the clever way to derail the legislation itself. It is probably not the case, with the sponsor and many of the people who are supporting it.

I am absolutely not yielding to my friend, but let me say, as I just said, it is probably not the case. That is what I just said. I said that often many times these amendments are offered in an attempt to derail the legislation. However, when the record is written, I will have a chance to show my friend from New York, whom I respect immensely, that I said that is probably not the intent there. And let me say this to my friend from New York, that I also have said that the gentleman has consistently worked for legislation like this. So it certainly is very, I guess, expected that the gentleman would use this opportunity. I would use it too, if I were the gentleman in his position.

Having said that, let me say again, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman, and I do know it is not his intent to derail something.

I would be happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this: I think the gentleman has been a great champion of tax relief in many respects, and certainly I have a lot of admiration for him.

My support today is for the marriage tax penalty relief. But I would love to see us pass this legislation in its entirety one time and have our colleagues in the other body finish the work that this House so many times has passed and that we cannot get through.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go on record saying I do support the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) on marriage tax penalty. I think it is so very important for middle-class America, and I support it today.

Mr. Speaker, Columbus did not discover the trade route,

but I am glad he made the journey. We did not find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which we were so sure were there. Even John Edwards and John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and many of the leading Democrats who are so critical of this administration said 2 years ago there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But aside from that, what we did find is nearly 400 mass graves of citizens who had disappeared from their families. We found women who had been raped, husbands and brothers who had disappeared, forced to join an Army or had their tongue cut out for saying the wrong thing. We found a very oppressed people. We have liberated those people.

I believe what we have done in Iraq, we made the right decision, and I am very proud of the soldiers that are over there and the ones who have come home have done the job.

I am proud to represent the 3rd Infantry that was so much a part of the campaign in the Euphrates River last year. I believe the worst thing we can do in Washington now, in the name of partisan politics, is to try to erode this victory in order to gain the White House.

I hope we will all come together today and support this very important resolution in support of our troops.

Madam Speaker, last week the leading Democrat Presidential nominee called the Bush administration a bunch of crooks and liars. Not one single Democrat stood up to say, ``Mr. Kerry, you've gone too far.'' An apology is in order.

And now this week the quote of the month was that he is saying that leading international leaders are asking him to become President of the United States, saying that you, quote, have to beat this guy. I am sure that was the case a year ago when Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq. I am sure he would prefer somebody besides George Bush in the White House. And I am sure the same thing could be said in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Mullah Omar. I am sure they would prefer somebody besides George Bush in the White House.

But the ridiculous thing is that here we are at war. And while we have a candidate from the Democrat side who wants to call the President of the United States a crook and a liar, do you not think it is a slap in the face to the troops to be saying that then the foreign international leaders want somebody else to be President, they want me to be President? Of course it is ironic when asked who these were, no names came forward. What meetings has he attended? None are on his calendar. What trips has he taken? None since 2002. I guess it is just going to be a year of hot rhetoric until Bush gets reelected.

Mr. Speaker, it is a presidential election year, and presidential elections are very important. Politics in general, in a republic like ours, is a substitute for Civil War. It is a very important process. At the same time, I think we need to control the rhetoric.

Last night, the leading Democrat nominee, John Kerry, called, or seemed to call, the President of the United States and his crew ``a crooked bunch of liars.'' Now, those are strong words, and somewhat ridiculous when we consider the fact that we should be having a debate of values, of ideals, and that that debate should be conducted with integrity.

As a Member of Congress, I call on our colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, to publicly apologize not just to the President of the United States but to the American people. We need a good debate. We need to look at the differences between these two candidates. One is obviously a big liberal and likes more government, higher taxes, and more regulation. The other one likes less. But the debate should be about those values, not name calling.

Senator Kerry, please apologize to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in 1965 if one asked a group of people how many in their family have to take five, six, seven pills a day just to survive, how many hands would be raised? Probably not many because in 1965 we did not have the miracle drugs that we have today. But today in almost any given audience if one asks that question, how many who have somebody in their family who have to take three or four or five pills a day, 80 percent of the hands go up.

That is why the Republican Party has added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. It is a choice; it is an option. If you are in Medicare now and you love it as is, you do not have to do this, because this is voluntary. But if you want a 50 percent reduction in the cost of your prescription drugs, this is a plan that you should take a careful look at.

The volunteer plan starts in 2006. To bridge the gap in the meantime, all seniors this summer, if they want to, again, voluntarily, can buy a $30 discount card that will reduce the cost of drugs about 20 to 25 percent.

This is a significant step for better health care for our seniors and a major Medicare reform.

Mr. Speaker, if you go into almost any group of 30 to 40 people and ask how many of you have someone in your family who has to take three or four pills a day, each and every day for the rest of their lives in order to stay active and stay comfortable and stay healthy, probably 70 percent of the hands in the room would go up, because that is the reality in 2004. If we wind back the clock to 1965 and ask that question, not many people would raise their hands, because we did not have the miracle pills then that we do now.

In 1965, when we started Medicare, we could not foresee this pharmaceutical revolution that we have now. That is why this Congress, under the leadership of George Bush, has put in a prescription drug benefit program in our Medicare reform package.

The plan works like this: This April, all seniors will get a 25 percent discount card that can be used in any pharmacy. Just walk in, a 25 percent savings. Then in the year 2006 you will get about a 50 percent cost reduction on your prescription drugs, on average.

Keep in mind, this is a voluntary program. It is not the greatest thing in the world, but it certainly is a huge step forward, and I think seniors will really enjoy this benefit. I am glad the President took this leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of James Rainwater, mayor of Valdosta, GA, who passed away recently at the age of 62. James is survived by his two daughters, a son-in-law and two grandchildren: Jamie Rainwater, Michael and Robin Woodruff, Blake and Jarred Woodruff.

Jimmy Rainwater began his political career as a councilman in 1986 before he took the Mayor's seat two years later. With nearly 16 years in office, Jimmy Rainwater served as Valdosta's Mayor longer than anyone in the city's past. When he entered the office of Mayor, he addressed and solved many problems that were plaguing the city, from poor quality drinking water to slow growth of industry to the low morale of the city employees and departments. From 1988 to 2003, Mayor Rainwater saw Valdosta grow to become home of Valdosta State University and achieve metropolitan status. He helped save Moody Air Force Base from closing and saw the accreditation of the police and fire departments.

Jimmy Rainwater wasn't just a mayor in the traditional sense of an official who presides over City Council and attends to the business of the city. He was devoted to these tasks. He rarely missed a council meeting. He often worked the phones and personally visited people to get things done. But there was more to his tenure as mayor than just attending to the business of the city.

Jimmy Rainwater seemed to attend almost everything. Wearing a pair of his many cowboy boots, he was a familiar figure at business grand openings and ground breakings, in the newspaper and on local television, in neighborhoods and community events, at banquets, dinners and suppers, charity balls and organizational fundraisers. He presented awards and proclamations, attended funerals and retirements, church services and military changes of command.

Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Rainwater was a fine American leader who will be sorely missed. It is my honor to rise and pay tribute to Jimmy Rainwater.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand here today and pay tribute to one of Georgia's truly outstanding citizens. I would like to recognize William Megathlin's contribution to society by presenting this article to the rest of Congress.

[From ``Compass'', Summer 2003]

Profile in Leadership--William L. Megathlin

Bill Megathlin briefly stretches his lanky frame behind his

office desk, pulling his trademark suspenders taut for a

moment, then leans forward, making his visitor feel at home.

The assistant to the president for strategic initiatives is

uncomfortable talking about his leadership skills but not

averse to giving a bit of background information.

A native of Miami, Megathlin earned his bachelor's degree

in psychology from Presbyterian College in Clinton, South

Carolina. He went on for a master's degree and a doctorate in

counseling at the University of Georgia.

His doctoral dissertation focused on training correctional

officers at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in basic

communication skills to better influence inmate behavior. The

study, funded by a grant from the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

demonstrated such a positive effect on officers and inmates

alike that the training method was adopted by other federal

and state institutions.

Megathlin launched his academic career at Mississippi State

University as an assistant professor of counselor education.

During his tenure at MSU, he also worked as a consultant with

state and federal criminal Justice agencies.

Though he enjoyed preparing college students to become

effective counselors, his heart was in corrections and law

enforcement. So when he was offered a position in the highly

regarded Department of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State

University, he and his wife Carol were off to Huntsville,

Texas.

In 1971, Megathlin's brother John, suffered a serious head

injury in an automobile accident outside Metter. So severe

were his injuries that he was rushed to Memorial Hospital in

Savannah. Bill and Carol drove through the night to Savannah

after hearing of the

accident. They spent a few days visiting John in the

hospital. John eventually made a complete recovery and the

Megathlins spent some time exploring Savannah. They were

intrigued.

While in the city, Megathlin visited Armstrong State

College. He discovered that a new criminal justice program

was in the process of being established under the leadership

of Jim Witt. A few letters, phone calls, and an interview

later, Megathlin was hired as one of two new professors in

the fledgling program. Several years later, when Witt took

a sabbatical, Megathlin was tapped to serve as interim

chairman of the department.

``In those days,'' Megathlin recalls, ``there were large

numbers of students pursuing criminal justice degrees, and

local and state agencies were hungering for involvement with

the university and for the opportunity to work with students

and faculty. They were anxious to reach out to academics to

help them address some of their challenges. That was very

attractive.

``It was a great time for me professionally. Career-wise, I

got more involved with administrative responsibilities.''

When former president Robert A. Burnett arrived, he

combined the departments of criminal justice and political

science into the Department of Government under Megathlin.

``Bob Burnett was good for the university and for me,''

Megathlin said. ``He was one of those people involved in the

business of administration who makes it a team effort. Over

the years, I've been fortunate to work with people who make

me look good.''

When former vice-president Frank A. Butler created a

division of academic and enrollment services, he named

Megathlin as dean to spearhead the reorganization.

Contacted at his Atlanta office, Butler, now vice

chancellor of the University System of Georgia's Office of

Academics, Faculty, and Student Affairs said, ``We were able

to create a good climate for student enrollment thanks to

Bill. He was a major part of the idea creating cadre.''

Butler gives Megathlin much of the credit for increasing

the college's enrollment past the 3,000 mark in the late

`80's. ``He doesn't make things take forever,'' Butler said.

``He cuts to the chase and gets results.''

Over time, new functions were added to the academic and

enrollment division that didn't always form a neat fit, but

Megathlin found ways to make them work. In the process, he

was in position to influence many aspects of the growing

university.

With the arrival of President Thomas Z. Jones, Megathlin

again found himself in the middle of reorganization. To help

move his vision for the university forward, Jones asked

Megathlin to become his assistant for strategic initiatives.

In his new role, Megathlin can often be found in Atlanta,

making AASU's case to legislators and regents for buildings

such as University Hall, the Science Center, the future

academic building, and the planned renovation of the Lane

Library.

Forrest Lott, principle in Lott + Barber Architects, has

worked with Megathlin on the construction of University Hall

and the Science Center, as well as on the refurbishing

of Solms and Hawes halls. ``One of the things about

Bill,'' Lott said, ``is that he recognizes the skills and

abilities of each of the team members and relies on them

to do their part. He doesn't try to be the architect . . .

That gets everyone pulling in the right direction.'' Lott

was impressed by Megathlin's professionalism. ``Whenever

there was an issue related to any of the projects we

worked with him on, he made it go away instantly,'' the

architect said.

Megathlin also serves as the link to Georgia's leadership

structure. ``It is important that the state's leaders know

what Armstrong Atlantic is all about,'' he explained. ``To

his credit, the president has made that a high priority for

the university.''

State Senator Eric Johnson has known Megathlin for fifteen

years and has worked with him in the legislature on

educational issues affecting AASU and the First District.

Mention the educator and words like ``gentleman'' and

``integrity'' immediately slip into the legislator's

conversation. Johnson summed up his observations by saying,

``When Bills asks for something, you know it's important and

you know it's been prioritized. He always knows what is

reasonable and possible.''

Megathlin doesn't talk much about his personal leadership

style, but he did volunteer this: ``You have to make things

happen and not just wait for them to happen. That's probably

the key to leadership.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and encourage all of my colleagues to support this long overdue museum.

I would like to thank Chairman Ney, Mr. Larson, Chairman LaTourette, Ms. Holmes-Norton for their diligence in improving this bill and bringing it before us today. It has been a pleasure working with each of you and your staffs.

I would especially like to thank my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, for his tireless efforts over the years to ensure that a National Museum of African American History and Culture will be added soon to our Smithsonian Institution. This project would not be as close as we are today without him, and I am proud to be a part of it.

Mr. Lewis, thank you for your steadfast commitment and leadership on this issue and for allowing me to work with you on it.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for a dedicated, national museum to celebrate African American culture, experience, and history.

The history and culture of African Americans is our history and culture. When we learn that history--the good and the bad, the tragic and the inspiring--we learn about ourselves. By understanding our common past we can begin to envision a brighter future.

Bringing this museum into our national memory at the Smithsonian Institution is the right thing to do. And bringing this museum to a prominent and fitting home in our Nation's Capital is also the right thing to do.

There are many issues surrounding this museum which I believe have been fairly addressed by this bill. We have tried to closely follow the model recently adopted for the Native American Museum currently under construction. Issues regarding museum governance and cost sharing, for example, follow this model.

We ensure this is a true partnership with the private sector and the public at-large by capping Federal contributions at 50 percent.

We ensure the historical integrity of the project by fully integrating this museum into the Smithsonian system.

We ensure the project fits into our Nation's Capital by preserving the consultative role of the National Capital Planning Commission.

The one point that has been made many times throughout this process was that a specific site for this museum should be decided now. The Presidential Commission, authorized by the Congress, recommended five sites within the District of Columbia, four of which are included as options in this bill. Each of these sites has significant benefits as well as drawbacks. I strongly believe that is critical to the timely success of this project that a final, achievable and suitable site is agreed upon as soon as possible.

To that end, all the members who have worked so hard on this bill agreed to drop consideration of a site on the Capitol grounds which would have likely resulted in many years of further delay with no promise that the site could ever be made compatible with Capitol security and overall development plans.

This bill and this museum can serve a valuable purpose in furthering our national dialogue on race. I know that it is the intention of everyone associated with this bill to see this project move forward in a spirit reconciliation and not recrimination. I know we all believe this effort is about seeking the truth of our common history without malice. I am confident we all share the view that this museum must be a place to bring all Americans closer together and that it not be allowed to become a taxpayer subsidized headquarters for angry activists or the domain of politically correct historical revisionists. I hope that all of us here today, and those of us who will be here in the future, will remain committed to this museum in the spirit of truth, reconciliation, and respect with which we take this action here today.

Mr. Speaker, expanding our national treasure, the Smithsonian Institution, to include the National Museum of African American History and Culture is a tremendous opportunity to remember our past while looking forward our common future. I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.