Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), for advancing the cause of fiscal restraint, something that we do need to do in this House. And it is interesting, particularly since the Democrats are right now promoting an expansion of welfare in an unfunded way, and proposing to increase spending on welfare $3.5 billion, and that is to give a tax rebate to people who have not paid taxes.

It is an idea that is ironic since 197 of them voted against it originally in May 2001, but they all seem to want to spend more regardless of what our budgets are doing.

I have just come from an appropriations meeting. And what is interesting about that is that on the appropriations bills, we have 13 of them, I believe, Mr. Speaker, every bill, it is particularly interesting since every one of our 13 appropriations bills, no matter what we propose in the Republican Party, the Democrats make a counterproposal to spend more. And I realize that my friend, the gentleman of Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), is in the minority of the Democratic Party where they do wake up in the morning and worry about spending. And I am glad that he does because I share his concerns about it. But I just point out that the majority of his party, when it comes to spending bills, wants to spend more. And no matter what it is, we are not spending enough for this cause; we are not spending enough for that cause.

I want to also point out, sometimes it is easy when you are in the minority and you do not have to necessarily make the vote for war, but we are in a situation after 9-11 where America was under attack. Americans were hurt, injured, and killed in their workplace. And while some on the left sat around and said what did we do wrong or why do they hate us, others in the greater majority, not just the Republican Party but in America as a whole, said, look, we are going to defend our borders. We are going to defend our domestic areas. We are going to just defend our homeland. And to do that, unfortunately, you do have to spend money because it costs money to go to Afghanistan, to send helicopters and tanks over there. It costs money to send troops to the Middle East. And that does add up to some deficit spending.

It is something we do want to get under control. But I would certainly hope that the gentleman and others were not suggesting that the war for the liberation of Iraq was wrong, the war to find bin Laden was wrong, the war to liberate Afghanistan from Taliban rule was wrong. Because I believe most Americans support those actions and most Americans are glad that we are taking these steps.

When people say to you things like, how can you look the children in the eye, well, to me how could you not look the children in the eye and say, you know what, we are going to defend our homeland and we are going to secure our borders.

There is an international war on terrorism and America seems to be leading the way. America has also been the victim of it, but we are going to win that battle.

And if the gentleman and others would look at the budget, they can see that that is where the majority of our spending went and it is going to continue to go. But we want to work with the Democrats to get spending under control. My concern of it is not in just dollars and cents, but my concern is the encroachment of the government on the private sector. Every dollar we put in the government, that is more freedom we lose, particularly in the private sector.

So I hope as we begin the appropriations process this year that we can have a lot of amendments from our Democrat friends that actually reduce spending so that when we run the legislative branch bill out here, when we run military construction out here, when we run the education bill out here, if they have ideas for saving money, I want to do everything I can to make those amendments offered by my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), or anybody else over there, the so-called Blue Dog Caucus, I want their amendments to be in

order so we can work together in a bipartisan fashion and reduce spending. Because I think that the best of our party and the best of their party should do what is right for the best of America.

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

I wanted to say to my colleagues in the House, I certainly intend to stay on the subject matter of this rule equally as much as all the Democrats who have been speaking at least.

I want to talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about this child tax refundable credit which they are so indignant about. Because I want to remind them, you all had nothing to do with putting it on the books, nothing. We were glad that you like it because it was a Republican idea, but every single one of you, every single one of your speakers has voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to help you a little bit out here and just kind of remind you so far we have heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), all good folks. However, they have all voted against this refundable tax credit, May 16, 2001, when the Republicans put it on the books. I do not know what you were thinking.

This thing that you were pretending to champion, you voted against. It was a Republican idea. Where were you when the battle was being fought? I am going to review a little bit of history, and let me say to this, you all are looking around stunned which I understand.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, let me jog the gentleman's memory. Here is what the situation was, and the gentleman is a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and has lots of bills that pass through his desk, so I will not hold you responsible for knowing everything.

Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 per child. It was passed under a Republican bill and, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) pointed out, it was signed by President Clinton. So you can claim a little bipartisanship there, even though that was passed by Republican votes when it was in the House, but prior to 2001 the child tax credit was $500. The credit was not refundable for most families. However, for a family with three kids or more, the credit was refundable; and it was not offset by the earned income tax credit. That was prior to 2001.

Now enter President Bush and the 2001 tax cut. Under that, the proposal was to increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. The credit was $600 for the year 2003, and it was scheduled to reach $1,000 per child in 2010. That law made the child tax credit partially refundable for all families with children, not just those who had three kids or more.

Now, we had the vote on that May 16, 2001, and I have got the Roll Call from that, and at that time every one of you all voted against it. As a matter of fact, 197 Democrats voted against this.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats come out here looking for some rhetoric, and the big rhetoric of the Democratic party this year really that has been led by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is, we could have torn that statue down a lot cheaper.

I know a lot of folks are against the war. And then it was, well, the plan is not working when we were going up the Euphrates. And then as soon as they tore down the statue, I know a lot of folks on the left, and I want to say not all the members of the Democrat party but a lot of folks on the left were disturbed that a 23-year-old Marine corporal who was in theater had the audacity of hanging an American flag on a Saddam Hussein statue. Of course, he was denounced in the liberal, left-wing community for doing that.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, that is why I said not all the Democrats but a lot of folks on the left denounced the fact that that flag was hung.

I would also point out that you were not one of them.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I will yield further to you in just one second.

I am very pleased that you all are listening. Let me do this, because I am being generous here, but my ranking member of the Committee on Rules says that maybe we should do this a little bit more on your time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I am glad that not only does the gentleman listen to fine speeches like mine, but he also reads the paper, which is very good.

I suspect it is probably The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Let me just say this, does that article point out that my colleagues voted against phasing in the tax cut, the refundability, in 2001? That is all I want to say.

What I would love to hear from our Democrat colleagues, Mr. Speaker, who are saying I voted against this tax cut and a tax cut which was a jobs bill, took 3 million working families off the tax roll, 3 million, and I understand they wanted them on. We thought it would be helpful for the working families of America to get off the tax roll. The reality is they voted against it. They wanted to keep them on. I understand that. I just wish they would acknowledge in the year 2001 that they voted against the child tax refundability clause, and I have the vote in my hand; and I can submit it for the Record, Mr. Speaker, and do that.

If my colleagues want to be helpful, what they ought to do on some of these tax bills that are aimed at creating jobs is say, hey, we want to amend the bill and we will do this. We will do this in a spirit of a democratic, small D, democratic House and process. We are going to vote for the bill if we put in some of their ideas, because this is the way it really should work, the best of their party and the best of our party combined together to put out just the best thoughts and do what is right for working families.

Let me point out that a family of four making $11,000 a year pays no income tax, pays about $842 in payroll taxes and receives $4,140 under the earned income tax credit. We think that is good. We think it also would be helpful, though, if my colleagues could join us in making these child tax credits permanent because their idea that they are concerned about now might have some merits. Why do they not join us in saying we are going to make these child tax credits permanent? We are not going to do a bait and switch, when in the year 2011 they are gone.

While we are at it, because we all know that a family of mom and dad have great potential for stability, why do we not end the marriage tax penalty together? Again, I throw out an olive branch to my colleagues, could they join us in making the marriage tax penalty permanent? That would be very helpful for the working poor. There are so many things that we could do together.

Another idea is the 10 percent tax bracket, the 10 percent rate. Could my colleagues join us in making that permanent? These are all things that could help the working poor.

We are not going to say we have the franchise on helping the working poor just because we voted to take 3 million off the payrolls and my colleagues voted against it. We are saying maybe they can join us on the next job creation package and come up with something that is in the best interest of all of us.

I would love to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, but we are getting to the point we have got a lot of Members who want to go ahead and have a vote, and I am a little concerned about that.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this. Our objective is to get people working, and that was the real goal of this to get folks working.

Let me say this to my friend from Tennessee: if the gentleman wants to join us in making the child tax credit permanent; the marriage tax penalty, eliminate it permanently; the 10 percent tax credit, make that permanent, he and I need to get together because I think we can move the ball down the road, and that is all we want to do.

I am just saying that the planned, orchestrated campaign of the Democrat Party to denounce something that they all voted against in the year 2002, I just wish the speakers would say I voted against this in 2001, but it is a great idea and now I am mad that the Republicans are not doing it this way; I want it done even though I did not share any of the burden by being responsible and voting for it.

I want to end with this. There are a lot of differences between the Democrat and the Republican parties. They seem to be the group of frivolous lawsuits and starving trial lawyers. We are the party of tort reform, ending frivolous medical liabilities, making health care affordable and accessible. They seem to like unemployment checks and government handouts. We like paychecks, jobs and opportunities.

They like welfare and low expectations. We like welfare reform, jobs.

Mr. Speaker, here is the situation with welfare reform, Mr. Speaker. We passed welfare reform at a time when there were 14 million people on welfare. At that time, we were called all kinds of names, and they were saying it was heartless and we were mean-spirited and everything else and that these folks were unable to help themselves. What is interesting is in 1996 when we passed welfare reform, we had 14 million people on welfare. Today, that number is down to 5 million people, too high; but we need to continue working on that. The 9 million people are now tax paying, working, enjoying the opportunity, sharing in the American Dream. They are glad that we passed welfare reform.

There is a component in this that the Democrats are proposing which is simply welfare, and I think there may be some merit in that. I have no trouble at all in a healthy discussion on tinkering with welfare reform. This is good for everybody, but what our tax package was about was creating jobs, and we are going to continue to be the party of welfare reform, jobs and opportunity.

Committee on Ways and Means

child credit refundability fact sheet

What was the child credit prior to 2001?

Prior to 2001, the child credit was $500 per eligible

child. The credit was not refundable for most families.

However, for families with 3 or more eligible children, the

credit was refundable to the extent the family had payroll

tax liability that was not offset by the Earned Income Credit

(EIC).

How was the child credit expanded in 2001?

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of

2001 significantly expanded the child credit in two important

ways.

(1) The law gradually increased the credit from $500 to

$1,000. The credit was $600 for 2003 and was scheduled to

reach $1,000 in 2010.

(2) The law made the child credit partially refundable for

all families with children--not just those with 3 or more

children. The credit is now refundable by an amount equal to

10 percent of the family's earned income in excess of

$10,000. The $10,000 threshold is indexed annually for

inflation (it is $10,500 for 2003), and the 10 percent

refundability rate will increase to 15 percent in 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Speaker, I have to say the Democrats evidently are fired up tonight. They are feeling good. They think they have some rhetorical traction here. And it is all rhetoric when you listen to the Democrats, including the last Member, who said our majority leader was playing golf today, which was absolutely not the case. And I resent the fact that somebody would be saying a Member of Congress was out goofing off today, particularly when it is a member who works about an 80 or 90 hour workweek on average.

It is just silly, though, Mr. Speaker. The Democrat party had an opportunity to take three million low-income workers off the tax rolls 2 weeks ago, and nearly every one of them voted against that. I want to repeat that. The Democrats had an opportunity to take three million low-income workers off the tax rolls and they voted against doing it. Now, in typical fashion, the battle has been fought, the soldiers have kind of gone home, and they are wishing to reinvent the history and say, well, you all should have done this, you should have done that. But where were they at the time? This proposal was out there and they did not do it.

But just keep in mind, only in Washington do you give a rebate to somebody who has not paid into a system. The reality is, in the real world, you get a rebate when you have paid something in. The Democrats are simply back on their mantra of the Democrat party: Expanding welfare. They should not be talking about tax refunds, they should be talking about welfare expansion.

And maybe the welfare bill needs to be looked at again. It has been reauthorized. We know that under the Democrat leadership there were 14 million people on welfare. Today there are five million. That is a drop of nine million people off welfare under Republican leadership. Welfare reform, which all the Democrats voted against, has been a great success, but we do not get that kind of real discussion with them. Now they want to expand welfare. Maybe if their idea is a good one they should come out with a new welfare expansion bill so we can talk about it.

Here we have under our bill a family of four making $11,000, pays no income taxes, about $842 in payroll taxes, and receives about $4,140 under the earned income tax credit. We are trying to do everything we can to reach out and help the working poor. We would like to have the Democrats help with this. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be there. As a matter of fact, this so-called tax refundability was part of the Bush 2001 tax bill, which they all voted against. So they are now mad because they voted no 2 weeks ago and they voted no 2 years ago, and they are blaming it on us.

Come on, guys, give us a helping hand. We want your ideas, but do not vote no, then pout and go home, which seems to be kind of the trend these days. They did not like the war, they do not like Bush, and so any success Bush seems to have in terms of legislative battles in Washington they will vote no on.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit this for the Record, but I am going to read a part of it. It is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal today. Unfortunately, I do not have the specific author of it. It says, ``The new tax bill exempts another three million plus low-income workers from any Federal tax liability.'' And you would think that they would be pleased, but instead they all have outrage, saying it should go further. ``The tax bill the President signed last week increases the per child Federal income tax credit to $1,000, up from the partially refundable $600 credit passed in the 2000 bill.'' Again, a bill all the Democrats enthusiastically voted against. What the Democrats are saying is they want more refundable tax credits. Again, it is just welfare.

So I am going to submit this for the Record, Mr. Speaker.

[The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2002]

Even Luckier Duckies

The new tax bill exempts another three million-plus low-

income workers from any federal tax liability whatsoever, so

you'd think the nation's class warriors would be pleased. But

instead we are all now being treated to their outrage because

the law doesn't go further and ``cut'' incomes taxes for

those who don't pay them.

This is the essence of the uproar over the shape of the

child-care tax credit. The tax bill the President signed last

week increases the per child federal income tax credit to

$1,000, up from the partially refundable $600 credit passed

in the 2001 tax bill. But Republican conferees decided that

the increase will not be paid out to those too poor to have

any tax liability to begin with.

Most Americans probably don't realize that it is possible

to cut taxes beyond zero. But then they don't live in

Washington, where politicians regularly demand that tax

credits be made ``refundable.'' which means that the

government writes a check to people whose income after

deductions is too low to owe any taxes. In more honest

precincts, this might even be called ``welfare.''

But among tax cut opponents it is a political spinning

opportunity. ``Simply unconscionable,'' says Presidential

hopeful John Kerry. The Democratic National Committee

declares that the ``Bush tax scheme leaves millions of

children out in the cold . . . one out every six children

under the age of 17, families and children pushed aside to

make room for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy.''

Senator Olympia Snowe, the media's favorite Republican now

that John McCain isn't actively running for President, says

she is dismayed.'' ``I don't know why they would cut that out

of the bill,'' adds Senator Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.). Those

last two remarks take chutzpah, because if either woman had

been willing to vote for the tax bill, a refundability

provision would have been in it.

Senator Lincoln introduced the idea in the Senate Finance

Committee, but then announced she wasn't going to vote for

the bill anyway. Ms. Snowe was also one of those, along with

Senator George Voinovich (R., Ohio), who insisted that the

bill's total ``cost''--in tax cuts and new spending--not

exceed $350 billion. Something had to give in House-Senate

conference to meet that dollar

limit, and out went refundability. The bill passed by a

single Senate vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking

the tie.

As it happens, the tax bill does a great deal for low-

income families even without the refundable child credit

addition. It expands the 10 percent income tax bracket,

meaning that workers can earn more before leaping into the

15% and 25% brackets. This is a far better way to provide a

tax cut than is a refundable credit, because it lowers the

high marginal-tax rate wall that these workers face as their

credits phase out at higher income levels.

There's also $10 billion in the bill earmarked for

Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the

poor. And any family that actually has any remaining tax

liability benefits from the extra $400 in child tax credit.

More broadly, the critics want everyone to forget how

steeply progressive the tax code already is. IRS data

released late last year show that the top 1% of earners paid

37.4% of all federal income taxes in 2000. The top 5% paid

56.5% of federal taxes, and the top half of all earners paid

96.1%. In other words, even before President Bush started

slashing taxes on the poor by increasing the child tax credit

in 2001, the bottom 50 percent of filers had next to no

federal income tax liability.

But don't low-income workers have to cough up the payroll

tax? They certainly do, but don't forget that the federal

Earned Income Tax Credit was designed to offset payroll taxes

and is also ``refundable.'' In 2000, the EITC totaled $31.8

billion for 19.2 million Americans, for an average credit of

$1,658. Some 86% of that went to workers who had little or no

income tax liability.

Republicans who just voted for the tax cut could be less

defensive and try to explain all of this. But instead too

many of them are heading for the tall grass, with Senate

Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley already promising to cave as

early as this week on the child tax credit. This is the kind

of political box Republicans walk into when they endorse tax

credits that favor one group over another. Democrats are

better at playing favorites.

We raised some hackles last year when we noted this growing

trend that more and more Americans paid little or no tax.

``Lucky duckies,'' we called this non-taxpaying class at the

time. Notwithstanding liberal spinners, after this tax bill

they're even luckier.

Let me just speak again for the House, Mr. Speaker. We want the Democrats' ideas. We want the Democrats at the table. We do not like this pouting: I did not get it my way, therefore, I am going to vote no. Offer an amendment, and if your amendment passes, vote for the bill. If they just want to spout the rhetoric and not the policy, that is one thing, and of course it is mighty suspicious that that might be what they are doing, but there are a lot of things we would like the Democrats' help on. We in the Republican Party would like to make the child tax credit permanent. Right now, the thousand dollar child tax credit expires in 2 years. We would like to have the Democrats help us out on that. Do you think they will?

If the Democrats want to help families with children, they should join us in eliminating the marriage tax penalty because that is phasing out. Will they help us? Will they help make the marriage tax penalty relief permanent? If they really want to help us, they could make the 10 percent tax bracket permanent. Will they do that, Mr. Speaker? Probably not. These are things that will help the American working poor and they will help American families.

Another thing they could help us with, Mr. Speaker, not that they go out of their way to ask me for my opinions, but they could help us with tax simplification. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a Democrat, has offered a tax simplification bill which I think would be extremely helpful. But we cannot get much support from most of the Democrats, and certainly none of the Democrat leadership.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to help the Democrats refresh their memory. I am pulling up the voting record. And if I get that from the cloak room before I finish tonight, I will submit it for the Record. For those Democrats who are demanding that this tax credit be changed, I want to make sure they realize they voted against the original bill. This is just for those people who may be tuning in and listening, at the risk of missing a Seinfeld rerun tonight.

Well, here we go. These are the folks who voted against H.R. 1836 on May 16, 2001. This was the refundable tax credit, as the Democrats call it. I cannot ask the Speaker which Democrats were speaking tonight. I do not know if that is allowed under the parliamentary rules, so I am going to go from memory. I believe the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was raising Cain, and she voted no in the first place. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), I cannot see offhand how he voted. Oh, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) voted no for the original bill.

Let us check the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She is one of their leaders, as I recall. I cannot quite see her name. She voted no, Mr. Speaker. In fact, 197 Democrats voted no to begin with. All this righteous indignation we are hearing about they do not like our refundable tax credit, they all voted against in 2001. I will submit this so my dear friends on the other side of the aisle can check and see how they voted. Maybe that will soften their rhetoric. Maybe they can start their speeches saying I voted against this, but you all should have done a better job even though I was against you the whole way.

Final Vote Results for Rollcall 118

H.R. 1836: Yea-and-Nay, 16-May-2001, 4:10 p.m.

Question: On Passage.

Bill Title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeas Nays Pres NV ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Republican.............................. 216 ...... 4 Democratic.............................. 13 196 ...... 1 Independent............................. 1 1 ...... ......

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for such a generous allocation of time. I just want to say this is probably the most important amendment because I have his and the ranking member's support. All it says is in the event of BRAC, if they close down a base, the roads will stay open to the local folks, and that will be very important to offset the impact of a base closure.

Mr. Speaker, back home in Georgia we need jobs. We need it for college graduates. We need it for high school graduates. We need it for people who are 35 years old. We need it for people who are 45 years old.

People like Ted Smith. I am going to make up a name, but he was one of the 903 workers who were laid off when the Durango paper mill in St. Mary's, Georgia, closed down. He is looking for work. And that is why it is so important for this body and the other body to pass President Bush's jobs bill.

The jobs bill stimulates the economy by allowing more expensing for small businesses. Small businesses can expand. They can write off more of their

expenses, and they will invest. It is very important. It also helps consumers by allowing them to have a lower tax rate. It accelerates tax reduction that has already been passed by this Congress. It puts it into law, though, in the year 2003 instead of phasing it in over time.

This bill also allows reductions in the capital gains tax. If one sells something and they can keep more of their money, then obviously they are going to be more inclined to sell something. That is a novel concept in Washington, but back home people understand if I sell something, I have got more money in my pocket; it is a good deal. And the best part is less money will go to Washington bureaucracies which are just going to grow the government and reduce our personal freedom.

This jobs package has already passed the House. It just recently passed the other body. Now it is headed towards the Conference Committee. I hope we can get this thing done by the end of the week because folks back home in Georgia, and I am sure it is true in California and New York and Maine and all over this great country, they need jobs, they need work, they need it today. Let us pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the pastor today, the Reverend George Dillard, is no stranger to the House of Representatives. We have had the pleasure of having him open our sessions many times before. He is always very direct with his prayer because he is very comfortable with his Maker.

I first met him many years ago when he actually was living in what was my district and now is the district of the gentleman from the 12th district (Mr. Burns), in Rincon, Georgia. He preached there for about 8\1/2\ years, and then I guess as I was his representative, he gave up on me and moved on to the district of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) where he really found a frustrating ministry.

He lives in Peachtree City, Georgia. It is a very wonderful place. I guess having preached a little bit to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and to me and to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), he figured he could take on the whole House. He has done a great job with that.

George's wife Renee and he have three kids: Tiffany, 12; Alexis, 9; and a new addition, George Stewart Dillard IV, who is now 3 months old.

George grew up in Atlanta. He played basketball for Atlantic Christian College. He attended Emanuel School of Religion in Johnson City, Tennessee, and got a master's and a doctorate degree from Evangelical Theological Seminary. He has been preaching full time since 1980.

I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming the Reverend George Dillard.

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.

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 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

It is amazing. One of the other common sense solutions we are doing to create jobs is ending the marriage tax penalty.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 205) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today as millions of Americans are spending billions of dollars and countless hours trying to comply with the monster we call the IRS code. We all know it is that time of year when we should have done what we promised last year, that we would even do it in mid- January; but somehow all the stuff that we need did not come in the mail, the dividend accounts and all the data that we need, and we know we are supposed to put it together, but we just do not do it. So we postpone it. And now here we are almost on April 15, that dreaded day on the American calendar that we all have to pay our income tax, and we just cannot stand it.

So all over the country right now people who would rather be doing other

things are trying to figure out how much do I owe my favorite Uncle Sam. And they are sitting around trying to fill out these forms, and they cannot do it, and so many times they have to go to an accountant or a lawyer to get opinions, and it is even said often when one goes to two or three different accountants or lawyers and give them their tax information, usually they will come up with a different number which one needs to pay. So that is confusion even on the experts' part.

But in 2001 the American taxpayer spent over $135 billion just trying to comply. I want Members of Congress to think for a minute what would we do if we had another $135 billion in the budget that we could use for education or for Medicare, for health care, for the war effort, for rebuilding Iraq or Afghanistan or so many other things. The irony is it is certainly not our money. It is the taxpayers' money, and we would not even be entitled to that money. It would be $135 billion in the economy that consumers would control; but, instead, it is, in fact, a hidden tax because if I have to spend $200 or $300 on an accountant figuring out what I owe Uncle Sam, then that $200 or $300 is a mandatory payment of taxes.

We spend over 3 billion hours filling out form. That is 1 full day for every single tax return. I was giving a speech the other week to a leadership Georgia group about volunteerism and was proud to report that there are something like 94 million Americans who volunteer 4 hours a week, and it is worth millions and millions of dollars and billions of dollars to the economy if we figure it at $14 an hour. But the reality is these 3 billion hours do not help children. They do not help dropouts. They do not help confused pregnant teenagers. They do not help senior citizens and all the other groups who could use some volunteer labor. It just goes to Uncle Sam. The IRS itself spent $10 billion just trying to enforce this very complicated system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of what my friend from Washington had requested, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), to explain a solution to the problems of the onerous Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, if we could get rid of the current Tax Code, we could get all those companies back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, it is my proud opportunity to introduce the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), and I yield 2 minutes to him. He is one of our distinguished freshman Members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/6\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) so he can explain these charts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), whose mother is watching him tonight, that she knows her own son. However, the IRS would define ``child'' five different ways under the current code. I know she is with us and appreciates the gentleman's ``yes'' vote.

This bill supports this hearing, this bill supports that debate. It is my hope that we can get those of us who may or may not be on the right committee to introduce our bills.

I am hoping that the Democrat Party will introduce a bill. To my knowledge, and I have been up here 10 years, I have never seen the Democrat Party introduce tax simplification. We have gotten a lot of criticism. I would like to see some of their solutions. Maybe we can do some bipartisan things together.

The criticism about the length of this debate is valid, but we have spent a lot of time preserving Social Security and Medicare and reforming education. These things do, unfortunately, take decades to accomplish. Welfare reform, which we passed in 1996, actually was debated for 30 years before we actually got reform on it.

I do not want this to be 30 years, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping that Members of Congress can use this resolution as a vehicle to encourage debate within this body, within this town, within the other body, within the executive branch, to bring the tax simplification debate forward.

I ask Members to put their ideas on the table, whatever it is, Democrat Party, Republican Party, Independents, flat tax, sales tax, simplifying the current code. Let us do something, because what we have right now is not working.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, this week we will be voting on our supplemental appropriations bill to help partially fund the war in Iraq. An important amendment, which was unanimously agreed to by the House that is on that bill, was called the Nethercutt-Kennedy amendment, and it has to do with the fact that the Congress has voted not to allow Germany, France, Syria and Russia to share in American taxpayer-funded reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

The idea behind this is that Russia, France, Syria and Germany have not been on our side and, in many ways, helped accelerate the war in Iraq by seeming to side with Saddam Hussein. We believe that if the U.N. Security Council and these members were unified against the weapons of mass destruction and the regime of Saddam

Hussein, perhaps we would be at peace today in trying to find diplomatic solutions; but now, it seems these very countries who are against U.S. action, who have made a 4-month national pastime of bashing the U.S., now they want to get U.S. tax dollars and help rebuild Iraq.

The Nethercutt amendment speaks to this, and I hope that the conference committee will keep that in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this very important amendment. I think the debate itself is a very important one.

It has been said that this amendment is emotional. I am not sure where folks are coming from. A lot of what we do up here is certainly emotional, and certainly not everything we do up here is logical. But I will say this, in terms of the logic of this important amendment, if we can picture Baghdad and if we can picture the 3rd Infantry Division, the 3rd Infantry Division whose patch I am proudly wearing today because it was given to me by one of the military officer's wives back at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and I have the proud honor of representing the 3rd Infantry. Mr. Chairman, 18,000 troops right now are in the war theater who are my constituents.

Now, they have gone up the Euphrates River and they are a little bit southwest of Baghdad. Now, in the original game plan, the war plan, the 4th Infantry was to be on the north of Baghdad. The idea was that they would come over from the Turkish border and then they would be ready, and we would have Baghdad in kind of a pincher movement. We would have troops on the north, heavy armor; we would have troops on the south, heavy armor. Instead, what we have because of Turkey's wishy-washy position, because Turkey could not make up their mind, we have the 3rd Infantry Division fighting basically the full force of Baghdad on their own. Now there are folks from the 4th Infantry Division getting in place, but there has been anywhere from a 2-week to a 1-month delay.

So what I am saying to my colleagues is, you know what? Maybe if you were from Hinesville, Georgia, maybe if you were a member of the 3rd Infantry Division, maybe if you are looking at the Republican Guard in the face, maybe you have a right to show a little bit of emotion. For Members here to take kind of this intellectual high ground and suggest that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is one of our brave combat veterans of Vietnam, to suggest that he is not entitled to some emotion on a situation that regards troops in harm's way, I think that is somewhat of a slight.

But I want to say this to the gentleman from California: The gentleman is entitled to be emotional anytime he wants, and by golly, I think our folks from the 3rd Infantry Division are. I want to say this. Back in the 1970s, when the gentleman was in Vietnam, I am glad the gentleman was emotional.

But I want to address some of the logic here that people so proudly say they have. We have 49 countries in our coalition. I will ask Members, do my colleagues know how many of those are getting monetary support from the United States? Twenty-two of them. The reason why I point that out is many people are saying, this is no way to treat an ally. Well, wait a minute. If we are only giving money to 22, what about the others? Are they not entitled to it? Are they going to walk around saying, well, we have to question being allies of the United States of America because they did not give us money?

Now, it has been suggested that this is the only money for Turkey. Remember, this is $1 billion. We gave Turkey money just a month ago in our regular fiscal year 03 budget. We will be giving Turkey more money in our regular fiscal year 04 budget. We have given Turkey aid money for the past 5, maybe even 10 years. I am not sure of the exact number of years, and I am not sure of the exact level. I think it is in the $200 million range.

But people are coming up here acting like this is Turkey's one shot for money. It is not. It is a $1 billion support check. That is a lot of money.

If we support the Cunningham amendment, we will get a second shot at Turkey, for those of us who feel that we should support them. They are allies and I think we should have some level of support for them, but we might not need to do it right here, right now. Let us wait until the fiscal year 04 budget and take a look again.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say this to the previous speaker: I certainly agree with him, the French have had a great role in our history and I certainly am a proud fan of Lafayette. I want to say Lafayette was a man of freedom, and there is no question in my mind whose side in this conflict Lafayette would be fighting for, and that is for the liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people. And that is why his portrait is here. That is why we have a square named after him in my hometown of Savannah. That is why we even have a city named after him in the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Collins) district. Only we pronounce it the correct way. We call it Lafayette, if you all ever want to come to visit.

The thing about the French, and I like the French but I dislike the French rhetoric that we have heard for the last 6 months. I dislike the French politics, which I think the rhetoric has fueled the politics and it is maybe some EU positioning that is going on.

The things that Mr. Chirac has said about my country are offensive. And the reality is there were not that many French businesses that were standing up and saying, Mr. Chirac, tone it down a little bit. And there certainly were not any Russian companies or Syrian companies that were standing up for the United States over the last 4 months. And it is such a shame, because I think they could have helped prevent this conflict if they would have said, Saddam Hussein, we stand against you in a unified world, in the community of freedom and the community of common law; we think what you are doing to the people of Iraq is outrageous. But instead, for whatever reason, they chose to apparently be on the side of oppression and the side of Iraq, and therefore we have American and British soldiers and 49 different countries, a coalition, fighting Iraqi oppression right now.

I had an interesting issue last week with a company from France that is actually providing food to the American Marine Corps. A French company actually caters to the American Marines. They have contracts worth $881 million. And I find it somewhat outrageous, and I have raised the question and many of you have joined me in raising that question to the DOD. But you know what, I will say, to that company's credit, they have written me a letter and said, you know what, we are on the side of America in this conflict. And I tell you what, they get it. And I am glad to see that they are exercising what I would say would be good corporate responsibility. I want to have further conversations with them.

But there are also rumors, and it was reported by Sean Hannity, who is pretty doggone careful of what he reports, but he was saying that there are apparently and sadly some French companies who have been providing, up to the conflict, helicopter and jet parts to the Iraqi regime. There were Russian companies that were apparently selling night vision goggles to the Iraqis.

Now, that is per one reporter. But I hope that as this conflict unfolds, we do not find that some of these countries who were opposing us in the Security Council had a profit motive of their own. I hope we find that their opposition to us in the Security Council was founded in idealism and passivism and not in, wait a minute, we have got some business deals at stake here; we got to stand for the sides of the Iraqis.

I think that what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) have done is offer a reasonable amendment so that we can offer our objections as a collective body to these people who, when they had the chance to stand up for America and stand up against oppression, they chose instead the path of politics and rhetoric against America. And I hope that we pass this. And I hope down the road we have an opportunity to redress it.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) who I think a lot of, was telling me, you know what, after the war is fought, that is the time to consolidate everybody and get them on the side of the new tomorrow to rebuild Iraq. And you know what? I think he has some good points to it because we do not want to have a fissure between us and Russia and Germany and France and Syria and China or any of these other countries forever.

Indeed, we have 49 countries in our coalition right now. We do want to bring the world together to rebuild a democratic republic, a free republic of Iraq after this. And I hope that these folks will come on board. I hope that they not only bring their know-how, but I hope they bring some of their own dollars to the table. And if they can, and at that point, I think they absolutely should be welcome to help rebuild this country, the country of Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I want to say as the proud Representative from the part of Georgia that has not just Fort Stewart and Hunter, where the 3rd Infantry division is headquartered, but we also have Kings Bay Naval Base and Moody Air Force Base and Robbins Air Base, we are very proud of what the 3rd Infantry and all of our soldiers and all the branches of service are doing.

I have had the opportunity to meet with the wives' groups at Fort Stewart. It is incredible, the strength these people have. As we often are sitting in our hearings in Washington, we can tell that most Members and most members of the public do not realize that many of these soldiers have already been in the theater area for 6 months. They are not on a 6-month rotation that some people seem to think, or a 3- month rotation. Many said good-bye to their loved ones back in September or October, and they have no idea when they are going to be coming home.

Our friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who is a Marine veteran and a veteran of Vietnam, raised that issue today among us, about how much time until these folks are getting off. We do not know the answer to that question, because war is imminent. Nobody is talking about, you have Saturday off.

The reality is our soldiers have been fighting and training in the theater for many, many weeks and months at this point. It is key for them to have a good support group back home, and to have the families saying, Everything is okay, honey. Don't worry about us, just come home alive. That means so much to them.

Today, I have an e-mail from one of our staffers, whose husband is deployed, about an Easter egg hunt that the families are putting together at Fort Stewart. Everybody is going to be joining in, and it is going to be an Easter egg hunt like we have never seen before. There will be lots of big and little kids looking for Easter eggs. We cannot have the soldier in the battle without the family support group back home.

I will say also that our Reservists who have come to man these bases and posts while the actives are gone, they are doing a very vital thing for the war effort. It is amazing to see the unity of people coming together.

I had mentioned to the chairman today, one of the distressing things is some of our weak-kneed supports from groups in the U.N. that we thought were going to be with us. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to bring up some of those thoughts.

Is that the one up here last week?

Madam Speaker, I had the honor of meeting the gentleman's former commanding officer. He said his years in the military did not wear him out nearly as much as being the gentleman's commanding officer.

Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is unbelievable when we talk to the soldiers who have that sense of mission, who have had the opportunity to talk face-to-face to the Iraqis who have been oppressed.

There is a group in Washington, D.C., a women's Iraqi advocacy group. They talk about being arrested and having their family members killed, and having cousins and brothers disappear. They say over and over again that the only thing that is going to liberate them from this oppression is an outside intervention by a country such as America that has a moral high ground.

It is unbelievable when we hear the Hollywood crowd, the blame- America-first people, who have done so well by the United States' system of capitalism and government. Yet, they are the first ones to jump up and down and blame things on America.

What I would say to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I hear a lot of people say, I do not support the mission, but I support the troops. Tell that to the young soldier who wrote that letter. We cannot do it, we have to say, love me, love my mission. If we are going to support the soldiers, tell them we agree the mission is very important and what they are doing is the right thing.

It does seem that in Washington, D.C. you go from maybe major to lieutenant colonel to colonel to general to journalist. And it seems that after you have turned in your uniform, you get more information and you are briefed in more top secret stuff than when you were active. Because it is amazing, the ex-generals who now can tell people what the plan is; where I would kind of think that if you do have a plan, which obviously you may need to deviate from, but you sure do not share it with everybody and his brother, as much as these embedded journalists like to think that they are in the Army. The reality is there are certain things they do not need to know.

I wanted to say a little bit, one thing about this open society we have, this open war where the camera is right next to the rifle, it has got some good and it has some bad. But one thing that is seen over and over again is the United States' efforts to minimize collateral damage. And here you have Saddam Hussein who hides behind school children, who hides behind mosques, who takes his palaces into the civilian areas so that he can cower behind them. And even with that we minimize collateral damage.

But you know, it is really bad when you have groups like the U.N. who have a role to play on the treatment of our prisoners of war, and all Kofi Annan has done today is say he is worried about the collateral damage because a missile hit a marketplace in Baghdad. We do not even know if it was an American missile or not. Does he say, America is bending over backwards to minimize collateral damage? That is a good practice. And is it not too bad that Saddam Hussein is hiding behind civilians and children and women? Is it not too bad? And is it not too bad that the Iraqis put out white flags of surrender and then turn around and ambush and shoot troops? And is it not too bad that they parade American POWs out on worldwide television and even show executed prisoners of war on TV. Not one word from the U.N. on that, but let them come back one more time with one of these veiled criticisms of America.

I think one thing you have mentioned is people can do all the anti- American talk they want, when there is a problem in the world it goes to the United States of America to solve. And the biggest criticism we get is people do not like the way we try to solve problems. But can you imagine trying to turn to France, trying to turn to Germany, trying to turn to Russia, trying to turn to China to solve problems in the world today? What kind of world would we live in if Saddam Hussein could have continued to gain the U.N. and America blinked and backed down from the action that we are having right now?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the cosponsor of this, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for all the work that their committees did in bringing this to the floor today.

I am wearing, Mr. Speaker, a patch of the Third Infantry Division. This particular emblem, and we all get many lapel buttons in Congress, but it means probably more to me than any that I have ever received. It was given to me by retired Lieutenant Colonel Robin Webber, whose husband is General-promotable Joe Webber. He is over in the theater right now from the Third Infantry Division.

In communities like Fort Stewart, Georgia, which I have the honor of representing where the Third Infantry is headquartered, and Fort Bliss, Texas, and other military communities around the country, we see these young soldiers and some of the older soldiers and all the soldiers and the support personnel as friends and neighbors. When we have an international conflict, we look at it both on a personal level and, of course, on an international level.

I was there at the dockside when the Mendonza ship was loading up the equipment from Fort Stewart, 500,000 square feet worth of tanks and personnel movers and helicopters.

I was there at the DAG at Hunter Air Base when we were shaking hands with the soldiers and standing by the USO as they put the deodorant and the Bibles and sometimes the pocketbooks and other items in bags for them, shaking hands with these soldiers as they went off to mission.

I was at the luncheon meeting with the military wives' organization when Ms. Webber gave this patch to me. They were talking about their own personal struggles and how this conflict affects their lives. Yet to a person and to an experience, everybody who was

involved in this great human chain of activity was very proud of the work of the Third Infantry Division; and indeed now, as they sit on the banks of the Euphrates River, our hearts and thoughts remain with them more than ever.

The men and women who make up the Third Infantry Division, of course, come from all over the country. They come from Mission, Texas; Alamogordo, New Mexico; Park City, Kansas; Pennsauken, New Jersey; Lithia Springs, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and all over. In that way they are so much members of the American fabric that we all are with them, even the people who did not see the horrible film which Members of Congress saw today, which Members of Congress saw some of our bravest and finest young men dead in apparent execution. We saw other soldiers, men and one woman, who were detained as prisoners of war.

It is with this outrage that we all come together on a bipartisan basis and support H. Con. Res. 118. We believe it is very important to send a signal not just to the soldiers and the members of the Iraqi military but the international community that we believe in the Geneva Convention and we expect any nation that we are at war with to abide by the Geneva Convention.

The four Geneva Conventions, Mr. Speaker, were agreed upon in August, 1949, and they were signed by 164 different nations, including Iraq. The International Committee of the Red Cross oversees the implementation of the conventions. The conventions include the following:

Article 13 states that prisoners of war must at all times be treated humanely, they must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Article 14 states that prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honor.

Article 17 states, in part, every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first name and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental or personnel serial number or equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever.

Article 19 states that POWs shall be evacuated as soon as possible after their capture to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

And article 23 says no POW may be sent to, or detailed in, areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone.

These articles, Mr. Speaker, seem to be totally ignored. We have soldiers over there now that are captured, seven that we know of, that we have confirmed. Yet we have 4,000 Iraqi soldiers, and we are abiding by the Geneva Convention. How easy it would be to manage for the care of seven prisoners compared to 4,000. Yet the United States, just like Iraq in 1949, signed these conventions; and we intend to stick by them.

By passing this resolution today, which we will, I hope, on a bipartisan and unanimous basis, we are sending a strong signal, three of them, Mr. Speaker, one to the troops, to say that you are foremost on our minds, so are your families and so are the other soldiers who are fighting to regain your freedom. Number two, we are sending a signal to the government and the military of Iraq that if you do ignore the Geneva Convention, then we intend to give you a criminal trial as a war criminal when this conflict is over with or as soon as possible.

And, number three, we are sending a signal to the international community because we know there are many who have opposed this action. We know there are many nations who do not like the United States of America, and yet since there are 164 nations that have signed the Geneva Conventions, we hope that all 162 others, excluding the United States and Iraq, would join us and say this is an outrage, we insist that Iraq abide by the Geneva Conventions. And this is an opportunity for France, for Russia, for China, for Germany, or any other critics that we have in this action to come together, as have Members of Congress, to say this is not right, we want these conventions followed.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor and close with the remarks of so many other colleagues. God bless these prisoners, God bless our troops, and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before we begin, let me yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the distinguished former district attorney from Boston, to finish his statement.

Mr. Speaker, we want to talk a little bit about the situation in Iraq tonight and a number of other subjects.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a businessman and new freshman. The gentleman is on his way to take his daughter to dinner, and, as a father of two daughters, that takes high priority. So let me yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado; and I want to commend him on words well said. I appreciate everything that he is doing to help free the people of Iraq as a new Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a number of things. I want to read a letter from an Iraqi woman. I want to read a letter from Charlie Daniels. I wanted to talk about a French company that has nearly a $1 billion catering contract to the U.S. Marine Corps, and I want to talk about Iraqi violations of the Geneva Convention.

First, let me read a rather spirited letter from Charlie Daniels. We know Charlie Daniels is the songwriter who wrote The Devil Went Down to Georgia, among other things. He is great playing the fiddle, and he is a great American. So this is Charlie Daniels' letter, open letter to the Hollywood bunch. I am going to read directly from the letter.

Okay, let's say just for a moment you bunch of pampered,

overpaid, unrealistic children had your way and the USA did

not go into Iraq.

Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all

of our nuclear weapons, stick daisies in our gun barrels and

sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves

on the back, so proud of what we have done for world peace.

Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to

keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and

fires.

Let's say that we close down our military bases all over

the world and bring our troops home, increase foreign aid,

and drop all trade sanctions against everybody.

I suppose that in your fantasy world, this would create a

utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all,

the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of

all of the world's trouble, would have disbanded its horrible

military and certainly all of the other countries of the

world would follow suit.

After all, they only arm themselves to defend their country

from the mean USA.

Why, you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic spoiled

mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade

Towers burning.

Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything

but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of

the USA didn't have the nerve or guts to fight him?

Barbara Streisand's fanatical and hateful rantings about

George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson

hanging a baby over a railing.

You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and

get into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility

you would find out here.

Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked long-

distance trucker that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing

anything wrong.

Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the United States

military that you think the United States has no right to

defend itself.

Go down to Baxley, Georgia, and hold an antiwar rally and

see what the folks down there think about you.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a

waste of protoplasm I've ever had the displeasure to hear

about.

Sean Penn, you are a traitor to the United States of

America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many

American lives will your little fact-finding trip to Iraq

cost? You encourage Saddam Hussein to think that we didn't

have the stomach for war.

You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of

this earth and you won't lift a finger to save the life of an

unborn baby. Freedom of choice, you say?

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am reading a letter from Charlie Daniels which I think I am certainly allowed under the rules to do. Not that I would ever argue with the distinguished parliamentarian, particularly the one on your right, but I believe I can read a letter.

I thank the Speaker. I am still in quotes, Mr. Speaker, and probably it is very appropriate for the Speaker to point out that I am reading a letter, open letter to Hollywood written by Mr. Charlie Daniels, one of America's most popular entertainers. I am going to continue with that, back to the quoted letter.

Well, I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my

own.

If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to

boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to the movies

if I have to. In most cases, it certainly wouldn't be much of

a loss.

You scoff at our military whose boots you are not even

worthy to shine.

They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you

can live in luxury.

The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with

the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is

the war on terrorism.

America is in imminent danger.

You're either for her or against her. There is no middle

ground.

I think we all know where you stand.

What do you think?

God bless America.

Unquote, Charlie Daniels.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can get this off the website. However, due to technological ethics, I am unable to give out that website number, but if somebody would call my office, I would be glad to give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, here is a guy who is one of the American-dream-type success stories, came up the hard way. I believe Charlie Daniels went to the University of Chicago, so he is not exactly just this country boy from back home on the farm that Hollywood would scoff at. But this is a guy who has really made it pretty big in the entertainment world, knows the Hollywood bunch because he calls them up front and he writes a letter like that to give us an idea of what he thinks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read another letter by a woman named

Katrin Michael. She is member of Women for a Free Iraq, a Washington- based advocacy group. She wrote this for Newsday, but I read it in the Savannah Morning News. I am going to again quote from this.

As an Iraqi woman who wages peace and has fought in war, I

am compelled to support a U.S.-led action to remove Saddam

Hussein. After 26 years of resistance against Saddam, I have

come to the conclusion that only forces from outside Iraq can

bring an end to the nightmare of his rule.

The stories of Saddam Hussein's brutality are all true.

Ethnic cleansing, summary imprisonment and execution, torture

and rape are all part of the nightmare. I know this from

personal experience.

My father founded an Iraqi peace movement, a crime for

which he was murdered. At the time I was 14 years old. I was

arrested by the regime merely because I joined the Iraqi

Women's League. I was not the only young girl arrested for

such a trivial offense.

Later, I joined the Kurdish resistance, even though I was,

in their eyes, a mere woman and a Christian. I traveled in

disguise to Baghdad and around the country to organize

opposition to Saddam. When I was injured in one of his

chemical bombardments against hundreds of Kurdish villages in

1987 and 1988, I was forced to flee to a refugee camp in

southern Turkey where I stayed until I finally reached

freedom in the United States in 1997. I continue to suffer to

this day from lung, nerve and eye damage caused by these

weapons.

No one in Iraq is immune from Saddam's brutality, not even

the closest members of his own family. He even executed two

of his own sons-in-law in 1996.

A commonly used form of torture is to bring a detainee's

female relative, preferably his wife, daughter or mother, and

gang rape her in front of him.

Members of the Iraqi opposition in exile receive videotape

of tapes of their female relatives in Iraq being raped. Women

who criticize or merely offend Saddam are accused of being

prostitutes and regularly beheaded in public.

His son, Uday, often leads these beheadings. They occur in

Baghdad as well as in smaller villages throughout Iraq. The

heads of the executed women are hung on the doors of their

houses for all to see.

I am saddened when I see people who sincerely care for the

fate of the Iraqi people resist the American-led effort to

remove Saddam and restore hope for the Iraqis. We cannot do

it alone.

Iraqis had their closest brush with freedom in 1992 during

Operation Desert Storm. I regret, as do most Iraqis, that the

United States and its allies allowed Saddam to squash this

resistance and remain in power. Those who care about peace

and justice for the Iraqis should not make the same mistake

again.

Saddam will never leave power willingly. He will never give

up his weapons and allow the Iraqi people to live in freedom.

That is the end of the letter, Mr. Speaker, but I want to restate one more time that this was written by an Iraqi woman who was raised in Iraq, who was part of the peace movement, who has come to the conclusion that only a U.S.-led action will remove Saddam Hussein, and that is the only way that the world will be rid of him.

I think that is so important, Mr. Speaker, because there are a lot of well-meaning people who are against the United States action. There are a lot who are not so well-meaning. A lot of people just have a gripe with George Bush, and they find the war a convenient vehicle to air their opinion. There are a lot of people who do not like the United States of America and, again, they find the war a convenient excuse to air their opinion on that. But then there are a lot of people who are absolutely sincere: peace first, peace only, negotiations.

Yet what this Iraqi woman is saying, who has been there and has been injured by Saddam Hussein, is we cannot do it alone, we have to have a U.S.-led coalition.

Today, Mr. Speaker, in Basra, we did find out that there was an uprising and at this point it has not continued, but I think that it will, and I think in the days and weeks ahead we are going to see more and more Iraqi citizens coming out of their hiding places and facing Saddam Hussein and joining the resistance against him.

Now, I have been joined by our friend from Miami, Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart). I want to yield some time to him.

I have a couple of other topics I want to talk about surrounding Iraq. One of them has to do with a French company that has a lucrative contract with the Department of Defense feeding 55 garrisons throughout America. I also want to talk about the House Resolution that we passed today urging Iraq to comply with the Geneva Convention. But the gentleman has been a very active freshman Member of Congress and has a lot of issues he has been working on, too. So I yield to him to jump in on this or switch topics or whatever pleases him.

I want to thank the gentleman for those words, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting, today we had a great moment where all Members, Democrat and Republican, came together on the issue of Iraq complying with the Geneva Convention, which of course they are not doing. Each day there is a new revelation.

There was a very tender moment today as we in Congress saw the pictures of the prisoners, the American POWs, that Iraq had filmed. As the gentleman knows, it was very gruesome. First, the cameras panned on some dead soldiers, soldiers who at least three of them had a shot right in their forehead; young men, strong men, men in uniform, men with their dog tags around their necks and the blood that was on their chests, in some cases. It was a very sobering, very gut-wrenching scene to see.

Then, apparently in the same room, but it was not clear, were the live prisoners. Iraqi TV or whoever the reporters were were interviewing them and asking them a lot of questions. There seemed to be some pushing and shoving in the room. It seemed that there were a lot of people. We could tell by the look in these American prisoners' eyes that they did not know if they were going to be alive the next minute, or make it through the night, or what was going to happen to them. It seemed like utter confusion.

What struck me, among other things, is that even in Somalia, and we all have read or seen ``Blackhawk Down,'' which I think was a great depiction of that battle. When they had the captive helicopter operator, he was still allowed to get the International Red Cross to come in. Yet in Iraq they do not even let the Red Cross in to see our prisoners.

Today, on a bipartisan basis, we debated, and we will vote on it tomorrow, House Concurrent Resolution 118, which I had, I guess I am not going to say the honor, which would be the usual word, but I offered it, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

I represent the Third Infantry in Hinesville, Georgia, and he represents Fort Bliss in Texas, where the members of 507th Maintenance Division were from, supporting the Third Infantry.

Just to see the House come together and say, you know, this is absolutely not right, and we are going to put the folks from Iraq on notice that they will be tried as war criminals as soon as possible. If that means waiting until the war is over, fine; but if we can get them out of there before then, they will be tried as war criminals. We made that statement to them, number one.

Number two, we assured our troops that we are watching and we are with them in thought and in spirit, and we are going to do everything that we can to get them out of there alive.

Number three, we sent a signal to the international community, the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Russians, those who were so quick to denounce the United States of America and this action. Well, there are 164 countries that have signed the Geneva Conventions going back to 1949. Let these countries now step forward and denounce Iraq, who incidentally is a signer of the Geneva Conventions; and let the world community find something that they can agree on in the form of these seven soldiers who are captured as we speak tonight.

That Russian equipment sold to Iraq, Mr. Speaker, that is radar-jamming or missile-jamming technology. Is that not the case?

It is interesting that the gentleman mentions that, because there is a degree of racism, I think, on the part of the peace activists of the world. The reason why I say racism is because would these people support a Saddam Hussein if he were in Paris? Would they do it if he were in Germany? No. They would denounce him quickly. But as long as he is in the Middle East, well, they have been fighting for years. Or if he is in, say, South Asia or something, well, they have been fighting for years; or if he is in Africa.

How many times have we heard, they have been fighting for years, we cannot bring peace in the Middle East, like the people in the Middle East do not deserve peace; but the folks in Europe, that is the high standard to live by. To me it is just a double standard. I can only summarize it with racism.

The gentleman mentioned Russia selling sophisticated, high-tech equipment to Iraq. We already are seeing in Congress that we have the supplemental budget coming, and it is going to be to fund the military operation as well as the humanitarian operation.

As a result of the humanitarian operation, I am already seeing a gold rush. I am seeing companies actually start lobbying for contracts. That bothers me a lot when we have one missing in action today, seven captured, and eight casualties American and 18 British. Yet what really bothers me is some of these countries are not American countries and they are not English countries and they are not Australian; they are not coalition countries.

I have one example, though, of a company. USAID, which is a foreign aid branch, it does a lot of good things, but it is going to let some humanitarian contracts go, and French and German companies will be eligible to compete for it. That bothers me a lot, that they will be able to profit from this war.

There is another example. Another company called Sedxho, S-E-D-X-H-O, it is a French company. It is a publicly-owned French company, but they have $1 billion worth of food service contracts with the United States Department of Defense. Recently, they signed an $881 million contract to feed the U.S. Marines in 55 different garrisons. We are working on a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, to say he needs to renegotiate this, he needs to cancel it, he needs to look into it. But can my colleague imagine, here is a French company, and France, I do not remember one division in the country of France in terms of their stance against America in the last 3 to 6 months. I do not remember anybody moderating.

In America we had division. We had a pro-war and an anti-war group, and the world knew that. But, in France, it seems like they were all united against the United States and against this war.

Apparently, that is not a problem to Sedxho, because they are a French company. And yet here are the Marines, the brave and the honorable Marines who are the ones who discovered this hospital today, allegedly a hospital, and yet 55 different garrisons in the United States of America, when an 18-year-old Marine sits down for lunch, a French company is making a profit from that. That is unbelievable, and I call on the Department of Defense to cancel that contract.

Listen, there are reasons sometimes we have to buy from an enemy. There are reasons that somebody has something unique, but we are talking catering. I am sure there are good companies in Florida and Georgia and all over America that can do the catering service for the U.S. Marine corps, but a French company, it is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, also, are they not making a buck or profit, things like that, but they have had a lucrative oil contract in Iraq they did not want to disturb. That it is clear France is not after some noble or high ground about peace, but it simply boils down to profit.

If the gentleman would like to make any closing comments, I need to actually make an engagement.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the gentleman is doing.