Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Georgian and an outstanding American citizen. I am proud to recognize Mr. Garland Thompson in the United States Congress for his invaluable contributions to his community, his state and his nation.

Mr. Garland Thompson was born on June 5, 1928 in Soperton, GA. His dad operated as a one-horse share cropper until he could save enough money to buy a small farm. Garland grew up on the farm planting row crops.

Garland showed signs of the talent, determination and achievement that have been the hallmarks of his career at an early age, when he graduated from Soperton High School. He then attended Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, and then University of Georgia where he earned his Bachelors degree. He then attended the University of Georgia School of Banking as well as the L.S.U School of Banking.

He met his wife, Anita, in Macon and they married in June, 1943. They have four children; Kirby, Andy, Beth and Tim and five grandchildren; Betsy, Macie, Kip, Katie and Trent.

Mr. Garland Thompson was employed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 12 years in Wilkinson County, before serving 37 years in banking between C&S Bank in Dublin, GA, and Sun Trust Bank in Douglas, GA.

Mr. Thompson has served on the Douglas-Coffee County Industrial Authority board for the past 21 years. He has also served as Interim President and Director for the Douglas-Coffee County Chamber of Commerce. Thirty years ago Coffee County was 90% dependent on their agriculture base. Today, they have a widely diversified economy that boasts about $200 million in the industrial base and $200 million in the agriculture base. As Garland says, ``it's about 50/50 now and we are extremely blessed''.

Garland has retired but still serves on the Georgia State Soil & Water Commission, SubBelt Exposition, ABAC Alumni Board of Directors, and has served on the Vo-Ag Advisory Committee, Georgia Extension Advisory Commission, and the G.T.E. Advisory Board. He is also a consultant on the U.S. 441 Economic Development Council.

It is my distinguished pleasure today to honor Mr. Garland Thompson for his service and dedication to Coffee County and its citizens. He remains an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I just want to say, when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995 and became the majority party, they started working on our budgets. Probably since then almost every single Democrat has voted against every single budget, it is fair to say. It is always because of the seniors, it is because of veterans, it is because of the children, it is because of the teachers, because of education, because save the whales, killing baby seals. It does not matter. If they want to vote no, they find good reasons to vote no.

The reality is that despite all the gloom and doom, here is the Medicaid budget under the Republican majority. It has grown by 76 percent. Here is the transportation budget. Under Republican control, it has grown by 76 percent. Here is the veterans benefits. Under Republican control, it has grown by 51 percent.

Why is that important, Mr. Chairman? Because not one Democrat voted for it. Here they are coming down to the floor saying, we are the champions of this, we are the champions of that, yet they have voted against all the budgets that increase the spending.

Here is Medicare. There is a 56 percent under Republican control, an increase. Where are the Democrat votes? They are voting no on every single budget ever since our majority has taken over.

Here comes another budget. We are going to increase some of these very important areas for our seniors, for our national security, for our homeland security, for our troops overseas. Again,

where are the Democrats? It is the same parade we have been seeing nearly 10 years now: voting no, scaring the people back home, scaring the vulnerable members of our society by saying these budgets do horrible things.

The reality is that the budget takes care of the critical needs of our society. It takes care of defense, it takes care of Social Security, it takes care of homeland security, it takes care of unemployment. Yet the Democrats are focused in on the fact that we are asking some very wasteful government bureaucracy to reduce their budgets by one cent, one penny on the dollar.

We do that routinely to Americans back home. As families, as taxpayers, we often have to cut our budget. I find it unbelievable, and only in this town are people suggesting that bureaucracy cannot find one cent on one dollar outside of these very critical areas.

Mr. Speaker, imagine if we could rewind the tape, we could rewind it back to September 10, 2001. We are sitting around looking at the world. We know that in 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. We know that 17 Americans were killed when the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen. We know that two embassies in Africa have been bombed. We have withdrawn from Somalia.

If it was September 10, 2001, and we were taking a sober assessment of the world, what would we do differently? Particularly what would we do differently as respects the events of September 11?

Mr. Speaker, obviously we cannot rewind the tape ever, but the reality is we are sitting potentially on another September 10 date right now. We have been in this world for a long time. We are looking at a world where Saddam Hussein had 90 days from April, 1991, to disarm after withdrawing from Kuwait and after the U.N. action that we know of as Desert Storm.

We know that in the 12 years that followed April 19, 1991, he flaunted the weapons inspection process. We know that weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter quit in disgust. We know that it was criticized. We know that he went 4 years without having U.N. weapons inspectors. We know that indeed 17 U.N. resolutions have gone by.

Our President has been very patient with the U.N. diplomatic process. It is too bad that it failed. It is too bad that maybe the U.N. could have stepped forward a little bit stronger during any of the time in the last 12 years, but that did not happen. Maybe the future of the U.N. should be debated in another Chamber at another date.

The reality is Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and has tried to get nuclear weapons. We know that he has murdered hundreds of his fellow men. We know that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch estimates that there is something like 70,000 to 150,000 people who have disappeared in Iraq, which is more than any other country in the world.

We know that in the year 2000 they implemented tongue amputations as a way of dealing with their enemies. We know that he uses torture. We know that he drills people. We know that he rapes people. He films things like this and shows it to family members. We know that, indeed, he has killed some of his own family members.

The message from the United States of America to the people of Iraq is that the enemy of Iraq is not the United States of America; rather, the enemy of Iraq is their own government; very specifically, Saddam Hussein.

We in America stand against oppression. We in America stand for the liberation of the people of Iraq. We in America stand for our own homeland and national security, and we in America stand for our own troops, who at this moment are abroad and ready for action.

I hope that in the 11th hour of this long process Saddam Hussein decides to step forward and save his country as he knows it and to help support another regime. I hope we do not have to pull the trigger; but should we need to do that, we will be successful. We will liberate the people of Iraq. We will do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, let me close with just saying that on this very critical hour in our history, we all say a prayer for our troops, and we all stand behind our troops. God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter into this discussion about the budget because I think it certainly is a worthy one in a time when our Nation has been attacked and is working hard against terrorism and to protect our domestic States from threats. We are at war.

The reality is this is what our budget does. From fiscal year 2002 to 2003, there was a 7 percent increase. From 2003 to 2004 it will be about a 3 percent increase, with about a 5.5 percent increase in defense and in homeland security; there will be increases in unemployment insurance because of the

economy; there will be increases in Social Security and, of course, a big increase in Medicare because of the prescription drug benefit that the President is pushing. Yet at the same time, we do need to tighten our belts. That is the way to attack the deficit.

I am glad to see that the Democrats are interested in the deficit after all of these years. What I would hope is that we can come together on a bipartisan, wartime budget and put the interests of the troops first, of the economy, of homeland security, of our seniors, and yet, at the same time, tighten our belts here in Washington within the government bureaucracy. I look forward to that process.

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here. And I am always so proud to have an opportunity to come down on the floor of the United States Congress and have an opportunity to debate topics of the day, and I do so with great respect to anybody who has the opposing view.

Madam Speaker, I notice my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is here. Maybe he is going to join in. He is going to be talking about aviators later on.

I do want to say a few comments on a number of topics. One of the things I want to talk about this Miguel Estrada nomination is, I think, it is ironic that here we are, we have the guy who has been rated was one of the most highly qualified by the American lawyers, by the American Bar Association. Here is a guy who graduated from Harvard magna cum laude, editor of the Law Review. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and yet our Democrat colleagues and liberal colleagues are so offended by his success that they are holding him up in the face of war, troops overseas, national security, and economy that is in the tank.

How absurd is it, Madam Speaker? I wanted to give you this. The liberal Democrats over in the Senate have objected and we want to give you some hours, 6 hours of debate was not enough. That was on February 6. So they went to 8 hours.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, liberal Democrats did not want to debate it for 10 hours so they went to 12 hours. That was not enough. So the next day on February 11 they went to 6 hours. It was not enough. They went to 14, then 24 hours, then 44 hours, and then on the 12th 6 hours.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I am not allowed to say U.S. Senate?

So you have this other body and they have already spent 85 hours debating a guy who the American Bar Association has rated as one of the most highly qualified. He has worked under the Clinton administration. He has worked under, I think, even the Carter administration. This guy came to America when he was 17 years old. He was raised in Honduras, did not speak any English. He graduates from Harvard. He is a distinguished lawyer by anybody's measure. And the only thing the Democrats want to do is debate him. Bush wants to put in his own team. We have a war going, but this is the number one issue now for the liberal Democrats.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Investigation.

It is ridiculous, though, because as I understand it, most Hispanic and Latino national organizations have endorsed Estrada. And yet our friend from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) says, Well, his big problem is he is not Hispanic enough.

Now this is from a guy who is raised in Honduras, but he is not Hispanic enough for the liberals. As the gentleman also said, they do not even know how to speak Spanish themselves but they are telling somebody else that he is not Hispanic enough.

The reality is, this is a very strong guy but they cannot stand the fact that there might be a minority group getting off the plantation. And that is the reality of it. It is a sad, sick commentary.

I guess the problem though really is what is his crime? The crime is he is Hispanic and in the liberal welfare support society out there, if you are a minority group in America, you are supposed to think and act in a certain way, and if you do not, by golly, look what happens.

My friend, Clarence Thomas from Sandfly, Georgia, he went through the same living hell and personal accusations and everything else because he was an African American and did not believe in everything that he was told he was supposed to believe in. His problem was he was an independent thinker. And I guess Estrada is an independent thinker who does not look to liberal institutions to tell him how he is supposed to think and behave and that is what this is about.

And I agree with the gentleman. By golly, vote yes, vote no, but have the guts enough to vote. Do not hide behind parliamentary procedures.

One of the charges against Mr. Estrada is that he does not have judicial experience, and yet I believe there

are eight judges on this court, and 5 of them did not have it. And incidentally, many of those came through some of these same liberals who are opposing him now and they voted to support these folks. On the Supreme Court, we have Byron Wright, and we have the Chief Justice Rehnquist, who did not have judicial experience.

But we know how it is, if you oppose something you can come up with any reason you want.

I wanted to jump into something because I think it is very important for the President, whoever it is, to be able to get his own team in place and try to get some good people on the judicial benches, but we have a war going on. Very serious issues in front of us.

The gentleman here is a former top gun. He was the inspiration for the movie Top Gun. He has been out there on the frontline. He is a great advocate for the military.

I am wearing, I do not know if the gentleman can see it from where he is standing, a Third Infantry Division patch which was given to me by the wives who have been left behind in Hinesville, in Savannah and coastal Georgia.

I know the gentleman is a Navy guy, but right now there is just not that much water in Iraq.

We have from Fort Stewart alone, nearly 18,000 troops who are deployed. Lots of mothers, some fathers, and lots of children left behind while these troops are gone. We in the House are passing an important tax relief bill tomorrow to give them a little breathing room, and I wanted to ask the gentleman as a guy who has been out there, who had to leave behind, this bill that we are going to pass gives them some capital gains tax relief, gives them a death gratuity tax relief, some dependent care tax relief.

Basically it gives the soldiers just a little more wiggle room and a few more tax benefits while they are out there fighting for our freedom. And I do not really want to ask the gentleman about the technical part of the tax bill which, of course, he is welcome to speak on; but as a man in uniform, tell me what this means to you out there on the front line? Is this important at all or does this send a signal? What is your feeling?

So there is a practical side to it and a moral side. It is a pat on the back saying we cannot be there.

But we really appreciate what they are doing.

I think it is so important for these wives and the families in my area, and I know in California that the gentleman has lots who are deployed, same thing.

Mr. Speaker, switching gears slightly, I always pick up the paper here, and one would think that it is the United States and Tony Blair, not the United States and Great Britain, but just Tony Blair, oh, and Jack Straw; but one would think it is just a couple of us out there fighting Saddam Hussein.

Here is a list of countries: Albania, Angola, Australia, Bahrain, Britain, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Guinea, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Macedonia, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen who have all expressed support of the Bush policies towards Iraq.

Why is that not in the paper? And in my colleague's opinion, is it important for us to wait out the U.N.? I think we are on number 17 in terms of resolutions now. Keep in mind, the very first resolution going back to April 1991 called for disarmament within 90 days; and it did not say, and we are having to come prove the case against you, it says you have got to show us that you have disarmed. What is the gentleman's view?

That is interesting that the gentleman raises that point. Having been to Afghanistan, I went over there a year ago and met with Mr. Karzai and folks from the Northern Alliance who were starting to form this new government. If there was ever a country that would have welcomed American colonization, it would have been Afghanistan. If that is what we were after, we could have done that; and we would not have to wait until this time.

I am glad the gentleman mentioned, though, the hatred and the madness of Saddam Hussein. I am an Episcopalian, and every Sunday my minister Bart Robertson gives an admonishment to us, Make no peace with oppression. Why Americans would want to make peace with oppression is beyond me, but I wanted to read some things to the gentleman that he has kind of already mentioned.

Between 1983 and 1988, Saddam Hussein murdered more than 30,000 Iraqi citizens with mustard gas and nerve agents. Human rights organizations have continually received reports from women who say that rape is routinely

used by Iraqi officials for the purposes of torture, intimidation, and blackmail.

In 2000, Iraqi authorities introduced tongue amputation as punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International estimates that Iraq has between 70- and 150,000 people who are unaccounted for. That is the most of any nation in the entire world.

The mass executions are a choice of Saddam Hussein. Since 1997, it is estimated that 3,000 people have been killed in Saddam Hussein's various cleansing methods. In February 1998, 400 prisoners were executed. Two months later, 100 detainees in another prison were buried alive in a pit; and since September 11, Saddam Hussein has expelled six U.N. humanitarian relief workers without explanation.

That is the kind of guy we are dealing with; and what is really sad, if France and Germany and the blame-America-first crowd here win and America backs down because Saddam Hussein has been perceived as backing us down, none of us will be safe from terrorism.

Absolutely.

Let me ask the gentleman from California, in California, they have some very good wines, and in Georgia we have Chateau Elan, which is also a good wine, and of course, there are a lot of wines.

Well, the gentleman might want to look it up on the Internet. At fromage, which is the French word for cheese, F-R-O-M-A-G- E, .com, it is a French cheese distributor, and they are down 15 percent. I recommend to everybody, look up fromage.com, see what their products are and continue the boycott.

I think we should also boycott the Paris air show. I think we should discontinue drinking their wine and champagnes and anything else; and, hey, I am not even anti-French.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I agree and I want to get off France for a minute. France is looking after their own national interests.

Let us talk about oil. That is the country that is making this a war over oil because they are the one with all the sweetheart deals with Iraq for oil supply; but look at our items that we buy that are French, and if we choose so, do not eat them.

Let us talk about Germany. My colleague and I do a lot of work for our military, and in my district we have five military installations. Big fear in Georgia right now, 13 total, is BRAC, base realignment and closure commissions. Do we need a military base in Germany with countries like Bulgaria and the emerging, less affluent countries that are strategically better located anyhow? But they are dying for our business because let me say this. If Moody Air Force Base or Fort Stewart or Robbins get on the BRAC list, people in Georgia are going to be nonstop scurrying around trying to get them off the BRAC list as they did last time, as will happen all over the world, all over the country; but meanwhile, we have got bases in Germany. If that is not 100 percent America's interests, then maybe we ought to move those bases. What does my colleague think?

I thank the gentleman for bringing that out, and I also wanted to say that it is important for us, for these soldiers, not just to pass the tax relief for them personally as a soldier in the field. I mean, it is, of course, very important and paramount that we support the war effort, but the other thing we can do for the soldiers is to improve the economy domestically. I am proud that this administration, while fighting the war on the international and domestic front in terms of homeland security, are also trying to turn the economy around and address so many of the critical issues in our economy.

President Bush has proposed a tax bill, which we will be voting on very soon in the House, that reduces some of the tax rates. Now, that has already been approved by this House. It is just that it phases in and phases out in 10 years. We are saying if it was good enough for last year's election purposes, from the liberal standpoint, then let us go ahead and put them on the books permanently.

The Bush plan also stops the double taxation on savings. As the gentleman knows, if you buy a stock and you are paid a dividend from that stock, you pay taxes on it. The corporation has already paid taxes, so you are being taxed twice on your savings. This tax bill stops that. It also gives small businesses an expensing item so that they can buy new equipment and write off about $75,000 of it. Seventy percent of the jobs in America come from small businesses. We have to worry about the small businesses, the small Main Street folks, and this bill does address that.

It also helps those who are unemployed, like my paper mill workers down in Camden County, Georgia, who work for the Durango Paper Mill that closed up. This will give them some unemployment help, but it will also help them create a personal employment account, and that gives them some discretionary money for some of their short-term expenses until they get a job. And once they get a job, they get to pocket the difference. That helps them move down the road. And the ultimate idea also is that it would shorten some of the time period people actually need unemployment. It gives everybody incentive. It is a win-win.

I am excited about this tax plan because I think it is so important, along with ending this conflict in Iraq. It is very important for us to stimulate the economy. And to show the kind of money it would put on the streets, 92 million taxpayers would get $1,083. And this is basically immediately. It has what Steven Friedman, one of the economic advisers to President Bush, calls a near-term lift, an immediate near- term lift. This is not something that is going to happen down the road, but this will have a very positive effect on the economy and job creation. Thirty-four million families would get $1,473. Six million single mothers would get $541, and 13 million seniors $1,384. That is money in their pocket this year, right now.

Well, and it really is so fundamental. We have all heard the old expression, why do you rob banks? Because that is where the money is. Why do the people who pay the taxes get tax relief? Because they are the ones paying taxes. It is not that hard.

These are some numbers according to the IRS. The top 1 percent of all income taxpayers pay nearly 37 percent of all taxes. That is the top 1 percent. The top 5 percent pay 56 percent of all taxes, and the top 10 percent pay 67 percent of all income taxes. Then the top 50 percent pay 96 percent. So how are you going to have tax relief without these folks benefiting is beyond me. But then again, I do not subscribe to the fuzzy math some of them had in the last 8 years of the Clinton administration. It is hard to follow these things.

I ran the numbers though as a Georgia representative as to who would these folks be. Well, listen to this: 860,000 Georgians will get some form of tax relief. And 60 percent of those who will benefit from stopping the double taxation on savings make less than $75,000 a year. Eighty percent of Georgia taxpayers, that is 4 out of 5, 80 percent of them earn less than $50,000 and virtually all of them will get some form of tax relief from this plan.

So I am comfortable. When somebody says 80 percent of the taxpayers in Georgia will get some tax relief, I am comfortable. But this is important because I want my families to have that $1,400 in their pocket because they are going to be able to buy more clothes, more shoes, more bookbags, a tutor for a kid, new automobile tires, or whatever. They are not going to be able to go on a junket to the Bahamas, but what is really more important than this is jobs. And this will create jobs for my laid-off paper mill workers down in Camden County; for my folks up in Hinesville, who, because of all the troops being gone, they have had to close up their restaurants and their CD stores. This is a jobs package.

There is nothing more important we can do for those in the military than if we can say, listen, if you decide not to stay in the military, we have a job for you. And if you want, those jobs are available sooner than later. And that is why I am excited about it.

Let me say this, too. I am a father of four, and I believe the gentleman has three children.

And I know that the gentleman's daughter had a real high SAT score.

Madam Speaker, we need to be sure we get that in the Record; that she inherited her mother's brains.

Let me congratulate the gentleman. But as a middle class guy raising my kids, you fight the day-to-day battles; are they studying their math, are they going to play baseball this spring, are they going to get some game time on one of these teams where the coach only plays his son. So you have these issues with raising kids. But just about every parent I know, lurking in the background every week, every day, is what am I going to do about college? What am I going to do about college?

My daughter Betsy is at the University of Colorado. Out-of-State tuition is about $30,000 a year. And let me say this, if the gentleman comes back to visit me in Savannah, Georgia, I am growing to drive you around in my 1993 Pontiac with 200,000 miles on it. There are no new cars in sight for the Kingston family. And that is pretty doggone typical. These education IRAs are a significant step for the middle class. The parents who know they may or may not have college educations themselves, they know their children are going to be better off and have more job opportunities if they get a college education.

So the 529 plans, the Coverdell Savings Plan, the educational IRAs, all these terms which are kind of confusing if you are not a stockbroker or banker or financial type, the reality is basically they are just savings plans to make sure that your son or daughter has an opportunity for that college education. And that is something worth fighting for, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. And I do not understand why the liberals are trying to tear down these tools.

Well, I am glad the gentleman brought that up because it is amazing how overtaxed our country is. I have a chart that is a little difficult to follow, but what it basically says is that the tax rate remains historically high as a percentage of our gross domestic product. On the average, what it has been is about 18 percent, but right now it is sitting about 22 percent.

So when people say, oh, taxes are about where they need to be. Well, they are higher than they were in 1995. They are higher than they were in 1980. They are higher than they were in the 1960s.

The gentleman and I have been here long enough. We are on the Committee on Appropriations. We do a lot of the spending bills. I have come to the conclusion that my folks back home in Georgia can spend their money better than 435 people up here in Washington, D.C., and so if we do not take their taxes, we are not going to spend it frivolously.

I wanted to, though, also talk to the gentleman about a spending issue that ties into part of our agenda. We started out saying, well, the Senate, our other body, are spending time on judicial nominees who are well qualified and they do not want to approve them, for political reasons, but we are moving on with an agenda on tax relief and supporting our soldiers and also frivolous medical liability.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the Speaker.

I want to discuss with the gentleman now, Mr. Speaker, this medical liability issue. And let me say up front that if I am in trouble, I want a lawyer. I want a lawyer on my side. So this really is not aimed at or taking shots at the lawyers. What this is saying is our system has a problem.

In Las Vegas, 30 obstetricians have closed their practice in recent months, leaving the city with 85 obstetricians to deliver 23,000 babies a year because of their malpractice insurance. That is according to the Las Vegas Review Journal, August 29, 2002.

In West Virginia, the parents of a 6-year-old boy were forced to drive 3\1/2\ hours to Cincinnati, Ohio, to find a specialist who could remove the pin that the boy had accidentally lodged in his windpipe. And that is from WSAZ-TV in Charleston, West Virginia, September 19, 2002.

Here is something from the South Florida Sun Sentinel, November 4, 2002. Women are facing waiting lists of 4 months before being able to get an appointment for mammograms because at least six mammography centers in South Florida have stopped offering this procedure as a result of increased medical liability insurance premiums.

And then here is one more from the New Jersey Hospital Association, January 28, 2003. In New Jersey, one out of every four hospitals, or 27 percent, has been forced to increase payments to staff emergency departments because physicians are reluctant to provide care in medical malpractice crisis stories because they have greater liability exposure.

The examples go on and on and on. And before I yield to the gentleman from California once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to show him a chart. I know this will not be picked up by the television, but it lists States that are having medical malpractice problems: New Jersey, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Arizona.

States that are not having frivolous medical liability problems include Colorado, New Mexico, and the gentleman's own State, California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Why do children with disabilities have trial lawyers?

I want to ask the gentleman, and I see that we have been joined by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), did California run out of lawyers when you stopped the frivolous lawsuits?

Mr. Speaker, again, this is not about lawyers; but it is about access, and it is about doctors.

I want to read a few more statistics from various papers. This is from the Business Journal of Portland, January 10, 2003. In three of Oregon's more rural counties, John Day, Hermiston, and Roseburg, families have either lost all access to obstetric care or their services have been drastically reduced.

Here is something from Amarillo-Globe News, October 30, 2002. According to a Texas Medical Association poll of Panhandle doctors, 61 percent have plans to retire early, and 83 percent said they use defensive tactics in practicing medicine because of fear of being sued. And then in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 6, 2003, in South Texas a pregnant woman was forced to drive 80 miles to a San Antonio doctor and hospital because her family doctor in her more rural hometown had recently stopped delivering babies because of malpractice concerns.

It is something that I am glad this House is looking at. We need a balanced bill. People certainly have the right to defend themselves. They need access to the courtroom, but the courtroom should not stifle access to the emergency room.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) has joined us now. And we have been talking about taxes, Iraq and jobs; and we started out talking about the nomination of President Bush of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. District Court. I had cited the gentleman from Florida in saying he was accused of not being Hispanic enough, and yet here is a guy who has graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, Columbia University, Harvard Law Review. He has practiced before the Supreme Court 15 times, he has worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, came from Honduras when he was 17 years old, but for some reason there are those in the House and the Senate who do not like him.

In fact, did I hear a Member say earlier that the House Latino Conference, did they take a position on this guy?

Nationally Hispanic and Latino groups overwhelmingly have supported Miguel Estrada.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman a personal question. If it was the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) instead of Mr. Estrada, and the gentleman had all of his qualifications, do you think that they would let you through based on what you are saying?

Last year when a different party was in charge of the other body, we passed lots of legislation that died, lots of legislation that was not allowed to come out on the floor for a vote. It seems that those same folks who lost the majority because of their inability to make decisions are at it again and it is absurd. Hey, vote the guy down. Have the guts.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I believe that we all are elected, be it a House or a Senate Member, or even a State representative back home, a county commissioner or a mayor, you are elected to vote, to take a position and not play parliamentary games, which is what has been going on.

If I may ask the Speaker, you can make a factual statement about the other body; is that correct?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, also, how much time do we have left?

I certainly appreciate the Speaker's leadership and patience. Does either the gentleman from Florida or the gentleman from California have any closing remarks?

Parliamentary Inquiry

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Mr. John Isaac Lee today. Mr. Lee is a champion of education as well as a devoted husband and father. John is the longest serving member of the Brantley County Board of Education and will be retiring after 36 years of service at the end of this term. It is for his service to the State of Georgia and the people of Brantley County that I wish to thank him, and I can think of no better place to honor him, than within these great walls of the U.S. House of Representatives.

John Lee was first nominated to be on the Brantley County Board of Education by Mrs. Mabel Moody and elected by grand jury on October 1, 1968. From that time until now, he has served in this capacity continuously, with not one break in service. In fact, during his 34 year tenure, he has missed only one regularly scheduled meeting; which was when he decided that he would attend his son's graduation from the University of Georgia. Mr. Lee has believed in his commitment to the students that he served. It is only fitting that when John decided to have hip replacement surgery on both of his hips, he made sure that the surgery and recovery would not conflict with any of his duties as a board member.

The students and teachers that live in Brantley County all know how wonderful Mr. Lee is, Mr. Speaker. But probably none know as well as his family that loves him so dearly. In addition to being a county school board member, John Lee was married to Mrs. Eula Mae Herrin for 58 years before she passed away, unfortunately, on October 16, 1998. Together they raised 3 sons and 3 daughters, and John is the proud grandfather of 15 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren. They can all be proud of John and join with me in celebrating his life and thanking him for his tireless service.

It is hard to imagine that someone could commit 36 years of their life to one cause and do it so well. But John Lee has done that as a member of the Brantley County education board, and he has done it with great humility. I am glad that Mr. Lee will now be able to relax and enjoy his life as a simple farmer, which is his natural profession, having farmed all of his life. He is a deacon and member of Hickox Baptist Church, and it is high time that he be able to enjoy the days in Hickox, GA. He has earned his time to rest, and the entire State of Georgia is indebted to him and his service. Thank you John Lee, you have meant more to the people of Brantley County than you could know, and you will never be forgotten.

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

We have got a new freshman class this year; and a month ago one of the Members said to me, You have been in Congress 10 years. What is the most significant thing you have done?

And I thought and I said, I believe it was supporting welfare reform. And here is why. In 1994 there were 14 million people on welfare. Today there are 5 million. Still too many, and yet 9 million people are now in the workplace, having a very positive effect, enjoying life and supporting themselves.

Some of the principles that are very basic American principles in the welfare reform bill are promoting work, improving child care, promoting healthy marriages and strengthening families, fostering hope and opportunity. These are all basic American rights and giving those 9 million people an opportunity to participate in them.

Since 1996, work among welfare recipients has tripled. Employment of single mothers is now more than 70 percent, an all-time high. Since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare. These are all significant and positive. The numbers go on: 3.6 million fewer Americans live in poverty today than they did in 1996; 2.7 million fewer children are in poverty today than in 1996. These are real changes, and we did this despite the rhetoric that we heard in 1996, which we are again hearing from the left who like status quo and do not like change. They address children.

Look at the facts on children. This bill increases child care funding. It improves child care quality and strengthens child care support, and that is something that we could get into on another topic. Look at the numbers. The increase in child care expenditures under welfare reform goes from $3 billion to $9.7 billion. If the Members want to help children like those of Bruce Mullins, help pass this bill because these are real people. It has had a positive effect on them, and I believe that our actions today will not always be known by all the people who can benefit from it; but our actions will be felt by those, and therefore I support this bill and I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to go over some of the facts because there is so much rhetoric we are hearing from those who oppose this bill. But these are what the facts say: Since 1996, work among welfare recipients has tripled; employment of single mothers is now more than 70 percent, an all-time high; since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare.

That is a positive story. The cycle of poverty is broken. There are 3.6 million fewer Americans living in poverty today than did in 1996.

Had we listened to those who were so against welfare reform, 2.7 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, including 1 million African American children. This is from the U.S. Census Bureau. This is not from the Republican Party. This is fact.

Child care, we hear how it is bad for children. The child care has gone from 3 billion to 9.7 billion in child care assistance. Again, very positive things, a significant change since the bill.

These are great reasons to vote for this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, what is the deal with the Democrats and Miguel Estrada? Is it racism or is it that they just do not like the guy? Because he is definitely qualified to sit on the D.C. Court.

He would be the first Hispanic on that court. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association and called an extraordinary legal talent by the Clinton Solicitor General.

So what seems to be the problem, Democrats?

Let us go on further. He is 41 years old. He has been in private practice 7 years. He was a U.S. attorney for 2 years. He worked for the U.S. Justice Department. But do the Members know what? He is Hispanic, and what the Democrats are saying is because he has no prior judicial experience. That is interesting because out of the seven judges on the D.C. judicial court circuit, five of the seven did not have judicial experience. Is it not interesting that two of the Supreme Court justices did not have judicial bench experience? And yet this Hispanic guy comes along, and suddenly the Democrats are really concerned about judicial experience.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Democrats to let this nominee go and put him on the D.C. Court. We need people like this. He is an American success story, and I applaud President Bush for nominating him.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address the House tonight. I wanted to start off by commenting on some of the comments that were made by our colleagues on the Democrat side of the House; but before I do that, I wanted to comment about the message that we just received from the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the President has listed as one of his priority items this year to have a compassionate, conservative model to end drug addiction. His idea is let us reach out to people who are unfortunately trapped by drug addiction and let us work it through local agencies and local volunteers and local charitable groups, get people off drugs and stop addiction so they can go on to have productive lives.

I think it is just an example of the compassionate conservative side of George Bush, attacking drug abuse on one side, but doing it with a human face and a gentle hand guiding people to get off drugs. I think it is a good program, and I look forward to working with it and seeing more of the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to comment, we heard many Democrats tonight talking about the deficits. I want the Democrats, the Blue Dog Democrats who are the more moderate Democrats in this body, I want them to know that I would like to work with them on reducing the deficit.

I was disappointed last year when the Democrats did not offer a budget. I think that kind of hurt them, hurt their own credibility of leadership, frankly, because I think that when you come to Congress, you have to vote yes, you have to vote no, but you have to participate and you have got to get involved in the process. I do not believe it is right just to be present. You have got to engage.

So I hope this year that the Blue Dog Caucus will offer a deficit- free budget. I know it is very difficult, because we are in a time of war; and I think in a time of war that deficits, unfortunately, are to be expected. That is why what we are trying to do with the Republican budget is make sure that it puts us on the glidepath back into getting out of the red and into the black.

So I am excited to work on a bipartisan basis with the Democrats on this, if they can come up with ideas. That is what we are here for. Put your ideas on the table, and let us do what is best for the American people. It does not matter which party gets credit for it.

Now, having said that, that I want to work with the Democrats on that, I also want to work with the Democrats on something else that is not really before the House per se, but it is before the American people, and that is the nomination of a young potential judge named Miguel Estrada.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democrats are rejecting the nomination of the first Hispanic on the D.C. court. I think it is unfortunate for the diversity of the court and for racial relations in general; but, more importantly, somehow that they seem to be attacking the American dream.

Here is a young guy that comes to America when he is 17 years old. He is an immigrant from Honduras.

By the time he is 41, he is nominated to be the first Hispanic to sit on the D.C. court. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College and magna cum laude from Harvard Law. By the age of 40 he had argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and was rated ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar Association.

He has worked at the Department of Justice for both Republicans and Democrats, and he has been called an ``extraordinary legal talent'' and ``genuinely compassionate'' by the Clinton Solicitor General. But he is held up over in the Senate.

I am joined tonight by some colleagues from the great State of Florida, just south of the State of Georgia, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz- Balart) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) who is here somewhere, who is the former speaker of the Florida House.

I would be honored to yield to whoever is ready, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and then the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris). I want to hear your comments on this important nomination.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim the time to say this to the gentleman from Florida. I am going to be honored to hear what it is like from both of you as a freshman, but I want to underscore for the folks back home that you are experienced legislators. The Secretary of State has been in the limelight many times before, and the gentleman's brother is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart), who is also a Member of Congress, and who reminded us last night that the gentleman's family came to America as immigrants when he was the age of 4.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am from Georgia, I am not Hispanic, the gentleman from Florida is Hispanic. What does not being Hispanic enough mean? Does that mean that one's mama was not and one's dad was? The Democrat thinking, how could one not be Hispanic enough? I mean one is either Hispanic or not.

I do not know. I hope the gentleman will tell me, because I would certainly appreciate him clarifying this, because I am a Republican, and Democrats probably can understand this better than me, but maybe the gentleman has some insight for all of us.

If the gentleman will yield, as I understand it, that seems to be his biggest crime, because he is well qualified. But there seems to be this racial litmus test that the Democrats are putting on him.

I wanted to invite the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) to jump in. The floor is open.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get back to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), because I wanted to say I was talking to the gentleman's brother last night, and one of the things we discussed is that I was blessed as a child growing up in Athens, Georgia. There were a lot of Cuban families who had to leave Cuba because of Castro, and they came to Athens, Georgia, among other places, but a lot to Athens. Many could not speak English, and they were very similar to families all over Georgia and Florida. Their parents, regardless of what their jobs were in Cuba, they basically lost often their professional licenses. A doctor or a lawyer, they had to step down a notch or two. But their kids assimilated quickly.

Those kids never forgot what freedom was and what it was like to lose it, those families. If anything, I found, particularly among, I would say, those types of immigrants, more patriotism than they afford Americans. They were all Americans, but still they did not forget that lesson of having freedom pulled out from under them.

So, in my opinion, you have somebody who lives in America by choice, like Miguel Estrada; he came here when he was 17, he could have left when he was 21. He could have told his parents, I am not staying here in America. But he left Honduras, he came here.

I never met the man, but I would be willing to bet that he is probably one of the most patriotic, God-fearing, pro-American citizens that we have out there today. That has been my experience with so many of the wonderful immigrants who have made this country what it is today.

I wanted to hear what the gentleman has to say, because it is just amazing that the gentleman's family, two sons who grow up to be United States Congressmen, the gentleman was telling me earlier, one is an investment banker, probably making more money than the ones in Congress, and then the other one is a newscaster, probably reporting to the world what the two in Congress are doing wrong, so you are covered either way. But that is a wonderful American success story and American dream, just like Miguel Estrada.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Democrats are not just attacking Hispanics with this, they are attacking the American dream.

As tempting as it might be.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to underscore what the gentleman is saying that Mr. Estrada is on 632 days awaiting action by the other body, and yet it is not happening.

Now a similar nominee about 3 years ago, and I mean exactly similar, a man named Merrick Garland, who was also Phi Beta Kappa, also editor of the Harvard Law Review, also graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, was a clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals, a law clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, everything except this guy was 44. Mr. Estrada is 41. Everything else is similar, and it took him 100 days to get through. And Mr. Estrada comes along, seems like the only difference is he is Hispanic, 632 days.

It is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

And that, I believe, that is why House Members are speaking out on something that really does not come before the House. But we see it as the Democrats are after this guy, apparently because he is Hispanic, apparently because they do not like his views as an American, apparently because he challenges their concept of the American Dream.

In the welfare state mentality you do not want people to climb the ladder. In the welfare state, the big-government approach is keep people down, keep them low. You do not want them upwardly mobile, and then they will depend on the government. They will depend on our largesse. But that is the pattern he has broken. He has shown in America that you can make it in America. It is a great country. In America you can be proud and free and independent. I think that challenges so many of the liberals in this town; and they do not like him, particularly because he is Hispanic. And I think that is just a sad situation.

Well, I agree with the gentleman. The last thing we need is more whacked-out judges from California, no offense to the good judges there, but they seem to certainly have their quota of people who say we cannot pledge allegiance under God, and it is really not, let us keep public buildings religious-neutral.

What they want is religious free zones, and yet here we in Congress, this very day as we will tomorrow, as we did yesterday, we started out with a prayer. I am standing beneath the sign that says In God We Trust. Our money says, In God We Trust, and yet these same judges would have all that purged from the land because it is apparently harming somebody somewhere somehow.

Well, I thank the gentleman and Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, let me give this quote from a member of the other body. ``The country is at Orange Alert. People are stockpiling water and duct tape.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I can quote somebody without attributing it to it, I thought. Point of clarification, excuse me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will stand admonished.

Think about this. The country is at Orange Alert. People are very concerned about what is going on in Washington, D.C. In the district that I represent, we have 18,000 soldiers who are already in Kuwait in the Middle East. We have thousands of wives and children and family left behind. We have an economy where the interest rates are not seeming to get the thing going. We have got a budget that is going to be in deficit.

We have got problems, and yet there are those in the other body that want to filibuster somebody who has graduated from Harvard magna cum laude, who was rated by the American Bar Association as highly qualified, and that is the priority during an Orange Alert, wartime, of a bad economy?

I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), it is a sad day, but I am hoping that we can get this thing turned around, and I am hoping that people like the gentleman speaking out is going to make a difference.

I wanted to, if the gentlemen have time, make a comment on a piece of legislation we are going to be passing tomorrow in the House, and I think it is very important, and I want their comments because when the gentlemen were elected as freshmen in December, we were all up here meeting them and one of their members said to me, I think it was the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), he said, Tell me, you have been in Congress 10 years, what do you think the most important thing that you have done is, what is the most significant piece of legislation?

It is a hard question. There are a lot of things that have gone on that I voted for and I voted against and debated on and had the privilege to debate on, and yet I said, probably welfare reform is the most significant, the one that has affected the most lives in a very positive sense.

In 1994, when so many of us got to Congress, there were 14 million people on welfare; in 2001, 5 million. That is 5 million too many, and yet the reality is, 9 million less people are on welfare. It appears to be significant, the principles in our welfare reform package which we will be voting on tomorrow, promoting work, improving child well-being, promoting healthy marriages and strengthening families, fostering hope and opportunity. Those are the principles behind welfare reform which we have stuck to, and I think it is very important to keep these in mind.

And, of course, none of this was easy.

The Democrat leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), in 1995 said, I hope children throughout this country never have to feel the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass, and indeed, she and so many others of the liberal welfare supporting establishment, the status quo supporters, they fought against the legislation, and yet here is a real case.

Tanya, a single mother, went on public assistance when her twin girls were a year old, but since completing her program with CalWORKS, which is a job training program, she completed it last year, Tanya has been able to earn enough money to purchase her own home. Here is Tanya and here are her two girls. I wonder if that is who the distinguished Democrat leader was referring to, because they do not look like they are miserable or in pain or unhappy. In fact, they are probably very proud to have their own home.

I know the gentlemen, as members of the Florida legislature, were involved in this, and they saw many successes from welfare reform on the State level.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman spoke of naysayers. Here is what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, who is the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, a distinguished man, but clearly wrong on this: ``The only losers we have now are the kids.''

And yet here is another face of poverty, another success story: Mr. Bruce Mullins lost his home and entered the Welfare to Work program in September 1998. He now has a life of joy and promise for himself and his two children. Here is a picture of Mr. Mullins and his kids, and they do not look like losers. They look very happy.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a friend of mine, as they all are, but friends can be wrong, in 1996 said, ``I am saddened that today it seems clear that this House will abdicate its moral duty and knowingly vote to let children go hungry in America.'' Pretty harsh words. Pretty wild predictions.

Mr. Speaker, here are some interesting statistics: 3.6 million fewer Americans live in poverty today than they did in 1996; 2.7 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, including 1 million African American children. These are statistics, incidentally, by the U.S. Census Bureau, not by the Republican Party or the committees in charge; but these are stats that I think people in the honest spirit of debate need to talk about.

I think it is good to have criticism and opposition on legislation, because I would think that it makes the legislation better. We should bring our ideas to Washington. Both of my colleagues are from Florida and have served in the State legislature together, but one is from south Florida and the other from central Florida. When I served in Georgia, I was from south Georgia, or coastal Georgia, which I still am, but when we come up here we are taking on a bigger role. We bring our ideas, be it from south or central Florida or coastal Georgia, we bring them up here and, if they are so good, doggone it, we ought to be able to get 218 people to agree with us. And if they are not founded in substance and fact, probably we are not going to get that to happen.

So I think criticism is good, but I think it has to be founded on facts; and that is one of the things we do not have around here.

Mr. Speaker, we are running short on time, but I know we have a few minutes, and certainly if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz- Balart) wanted to add a few comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen from Florida, and I appreciate their time this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their comments on the budget. I think that their ideas are useful and good. I think they also know, and although they were not really talking about it, that we are at war. America has been attacked. America needs to respond. At this point, America continues to be the world leader.

It is interesting that when people say, well, why do we have 37,000 troops in South Korea? Well, if we talk to the folks who live in South Korea or in China or Japan, and say maybe we should move those 37,000 folks, bring them on home. Well, no, no, no. If we do that, then there is world instability, particularly in this region of the world which is stable right now. Do not pull them out, and yet America has to respond when North Korea, largely because of the inept policies of the previous administration, goes on an accelerated path to nuclear weapon development, then America has to step in there.

Unfortunately, so many of these things cost a lot of money. Thirty- seven thousand troops in the Korean peninsula, that is very expensive; and we have troops in Afghanistan. We have troops in the Balkans still; and of course, we have troops right now in Kuwait and in the Middle East.

I think as much as none of us want a deficit, I believe all of us, even the doves in this body, even the folks who feel like France and Germany are right, I think that they would admit that we have to defend ourselves, and so we do have a deficit budget. I do not like it anymore than anybody else, and I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is going to do everything he can to bring down the deficit and move us back into surplus.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, it is more important for America to survive; and I think as I have seen so many of our troops from Fort Stewart deployed, the third infantry division which I am proud to be wearing their emblem tonight, I think we have got to keep in mind these soldiers are out there in the foxholes for our freedom and our security, and they need great equipment. They need modern equipment. They need readiness in all areas of the globe. So our budget addresses is.

In fact, our budget, which for fiscal year 2004, will be about $2.2 trillion. That is a 4 percent increase. I would like to, frankly, see it decreased, but again, with the world situation, sometimes we cannot control this.

About 5 percent of that increase comes directly because of military, and then in the other categories, not all of them, there are a lot of reductions; but there is about a 3 percent increase, and that is comparable to the average family budget.

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet the Chair's family this last weekend, and my family, some of them were with us and some of them were not; but Libby and I have four children, and one thing about it, when a person is raising kids, they never have quite enough money. They have to buy. They do not begrudge it. They have got to buy their clothes and school supplies, and then if they play sports, they have got to buy sports equipment; and what I found out, much to my chagrin, is that if John Kingston is playing football, he cannot use the same cleats for soccer and baseball, whereas the Chair and I, Mr. Speaker, had one pair of cleats fit all.

In fact, I went back to my elementary school baseball picture, and half the boys on the baseball team were barefooted. But not so today. These kids today have to have $60 and $70 of tennis shoes and that is part of being a family these days. We have got all those expenses and then doggone it, we save up a little money and say, well, we are going to sneak on down to Florida, spend the weekend in Daytona, have some fun. Well, the washer breaks or we have got to do something as glorious as buy a new set of tires for our car or we have got to do something else that is not as much fun, but it is essential to spend money on.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what President Bush has done with this budget. He said there is a lot of things out there that we want to have, but we are not going to be able to do; but there are other things out there that we need to do, and we are going to do that.

One of these things, Mr. Speaker, along with the troops, is trying to get jobs going because nothing will turn the economy around more than jobs.

I am not sure where the Democrats in this body go to school. I am sure they go to some good public schools and some good private schools; but, Mr. Speaker, somehow they failed in economics and history because economics and history will show us that President Kennedy and President Reagan reduced taxes; and when they did, the economy responded and created more jobs, and more revenue came in. In fact, it doubled in these cases; and if we just think about it for a minute, it makes sense.

Under the Bush tax reduction, 92 million Americans will get about a $1,000 tax reduction; 34 million American with children will get $1,400 in their pocket; 6 million single mothers will get $541 in their pocket; and 13 million elderly taxpayers will get $1,384 in their pocket.

If someone puts $1,000 in my pocket, I am going to try to spend some of it, and I am going to try to save some of it. I want to save some for my kids' college education, want to save some for my own retirement; but also I am more likely going out and maybe buy that new shirt that I know I have been needing to buy or maybe buy something for the house that I needed to get, get a new crock pot for the kitchen or something like that.

When I do that, small businesses will respond. They will say, hey, look, more consumers are buying, they have got more money in their pocket, let us put on a new shelf of inventory. When we do that, hey, we need a new salesclerk to help us move this inventory. When the new salesclerk comes, well, suddenly we have got somebody who may have been on welfare before who is now working, and then they are paying taxes; and before we know it, the revenue to the local government, to the State government and the Federal Government goes straight up. That is the idea behind the tax reduction; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is one reason why we need to pass it and pass it now.

The Democrats' thinking on this model is, okay, we will vote for the tax

cut, but we want to postpone it. We do not want it, so married couples should not be having the marriage tax penalty, and we agree with that, but we do not want that to take place for 4 or 5 years. Well, hey, if it is right, do it today; and that is what the Bush plan is, is to accelerate these things.

But I think this is part of our budget, Mr. Speaker, because turning the economy around is so very important; and when the Republican conservative economic policies kicked in in 1995 after the Republicans took over this body, the President at the time reluctantly helped us pass some tax reductions. The economy took off and revenues went up, and we were able to balance the budget.

So I believe that it is very timely to pass a tax reduction to reduce the deficit, and I hope that our Democrat friends will join us in that as they have in the past.

The average American family has an income of $39,000. This cut would provide them with an additional $1,100 a year. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is significant money and something that we want to do.

I also wanted to comment on some other issues tonight, Mr. Speaker. The situation in Iraq. As I mentioned earlier today, I had the opportunity to meet with the wives whose husbands are in the third infantry division, Fort Stewart, Hunter and Savannah, Georgia. About 18,000 soldiers are deployed to the Middle East right now, a huge loss in our area in terms of our neighbors and our friends; but we cannot have soldiers in the field without the families back home.

We cannot have an army in the field without the supply folks back home making sure that the Army has the material they need to fight the war. And these women in the Fort Stewart-Hunter Wives Organization are just as brave as the soldiers on the front line. Indeed, they are on the emotional front line. One of the messages that I gave them was that 435 Members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, city, rural, everybody appreciated what they were doing, staying at home.

Even if you are in Kuwait, you are often dealing with other adults, and sometimes that is easier than dealing with children back home who lose their books, who lose their shoes, who need to be picked up at 3 o'clock but do not show up until 3:20, and, in the meantime, across town you have soccer practice. And then you have other financial problems: taxes that are due, insurance payments, should you take the higher deductible, the lower deductible, do we still need collision insurance, and then there is the home mortgage renegotiation. Hey, interest rates are down. We are paying 6, 7 percent interest. Maybe we can get an adjustable rate mortgage for 2\1/2\ percent. How do I do this? Oh no, Mom is sick and I am going to have to go back to Chicago. I'll have to arrange for the kids back home, because I have got to see what Mom's needs are. My goodness, maybe it is time to put Dad in the nursing home. Do we do this? I have to call my brother in from Seattle.

These are the day-to-day questions facing these families back home. It is very, very difficult. And I think we should at all times, whenever we are thinking about the soldiers in the field, we should also remember the families back home.

I think we should also be appreciative of the great job that groups like the USO, the United Service Organizations, the Red Cross, groups like Southern Smiles and other volunteer groups across the country who are sending care packages to these soldiers and remembering them; getting them Chapstick, getting them soap, getting them deodorant, getting them comic books and getting them Bibles.

In fact, when I went to see some of our soldiers depart, as they were getting on the plane, the Red Cross was giving out camouflage Bibles. I never had seen a camouflaged Bible before, but I know that within the binder of that book is the truth that surpasses all understanding and that everybody needs these words of comfort in times of peril.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to talk a little bit more about the war protesters, because we hear so many people in America who think that we are the aggressive country here. And a lot of folks are asking, well, why are we at war? The truth is so many of these war protestors do not want to hear the facts on it, but I wanted to go over some of these things.

First of all, let us remember, Saddam Hussein and Iraq have invaded their own Middle Eastern neighbors, Iran and Kuwait. They are a factor of instability in their own region of the world. Indeed, it is obvious at times like these that we do not see any of their neighbors coming to their aid. They are not jumping up and down to say ``Go America,'' for obvious reasons; but why is it that these countries are not coming to the aid of Saddam Hussein, if he is such a great person, according to some of the war protestors?

We know for a fact that he has violated 16 U.N. treaties that have been passed since Desert Storm, and yet in the face of that, the U.N. seems very reluctant to enforce their own treaties. So again it has to come back to America, and America is the one that has to do something about it.

Saddam Hussein has not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax. He has not accounted for 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. He has not accounted for 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. Item after item which the weapons inspectors have tried to put their finger on he has hidden from them. This is why we are concerned about what is going on in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and we are going to talk about a judicial nominee; but before we go to that, I wanted to invite my friend from Florida to jump in on the question of Iraq. I know in the great State of Florida, just like Georgia, the gentleman has a lot of anti-war protestors.

I have heard Richard Armitage say, and I believe this myself, people have the right and the duty to hold us accountable for decisions that send young men and women in harm's way. I think my colleague and I should be subjected to all the criticism that they have to offer. But I would also ask the war protestors to be intellectually honest and look at some of the facts. Because if you are just against war, maybe we should ask you this question: Have there been any wars that have benefited you? Did the Revolutionary War benefit you? Did the Civil War benefit you? Did World War II benefit you? Surely, in every case the soldiers and the political leaders, generally speaking, did not want war; and yet there were wars, terrible, horrible wars, and sometimes the benefits of those wars outweighed the tragedies. We are free today. We do not have to worry about an Adolf Hitler. We are an independent country today because our forefathers fought Great Britain.

Things like that are often the result of human conflict; yet the war protestors would rather say, well, we are just against this because we are going to kill innocent people. America is not the folks who are using humans as shields; it is Saddam Hussein who is moving people into weapons areas and targeted areas. So I think we have done almost everything we can through the U.N. I hope the U.N. will get on board. I hope Saddam Hussein will say, okay, guys, I give up. I hope that there is not a war, as I know the President and all the soldiers hope there is not a war; but there does come a time when you have to move forward.

If the gentleman would like to speak, I would be happy to yield to him.

In fact, if the gentleman will yield, he used it on the Kurds and caused 2 million to be refugees into Turkey and Syria and other neighboring countries. Two million refugees because he used chemical weapons.

If the gentleman will yield, I think he has put it well. If we can go back to the pre 9-11 USA, there were tremors. As the gentleman said, in 1993, the bombing of the World Trade Center, embassy bombings two times in Africa, the USS Cole in Yemen. There were not just terrorist attacks but terrorist activities, and we had an opportunity to monitor it closer, but that did not happen. As is always the case when we look back, we see these red flags. And a lot of people have said, well, should we have done something? Well, now we have red flags all over the globe, and the President is doing something. Yet those same people who wanted a special independent commission to look into 9-11, now they are saying you are a warmonger because you want to do a preemptive strike.

You cannot have it both ways. This action against Saddam Hussein enables your family and my family to go to Main Street, to Wal-Mart on Saturday afternoon and the workplace 5 days a week and not worry, and that is what we have the right to do as Americans.

Absolutely. Yet at the same time, a man of great sincerity and religious conviction who has said repeatedly he does not want war and does not take any of these decisions lightly. This is all done void of politics, void of reelection, void of election, void of polls. This President does these things for the right reason.

I wanted to ask the gentleman. The gentleman is from Florida. The gentleman has been a leader in so many different issues and an active member of the Committee on Rules and someone who has certainly been very active on the question of American relations with Cuba. I do not want to touch base on Cuba, but I know that your brother talked to the President about it this weekend, and I thought the President, as usual, approached the whole question not with politics, but with conviction.

Right now we have some limited trade. We can trade with them, but it has to be on a cash basis.

That is for food and for medicine?

But there is a pressure to put tourism dollars in it. We have kind of drawn the line, this Congress has.

One of the great parts of my childhood growing up in Athens, Georgia, it was not so great for them particularly at the time was when so many Cubans fled Castro and Athens, Georgia, was one of the towns that they arrived in. I was raised with Maria Saladriguez and Rosa Chavez and all kinds of kids that came in the 10th grade and assimilated fairly quickly. But it was interesting, as we went to their house, they were still speaking Spanish; and their parents, who often had been physicians and professional businesspeople in Cuba, in Havana, were now reduced to working in laundromats and doing manual labor in America.

I actually sold my house to a guy named Roberto Casillo in Savannah, Georgia, and his family was among that crowd. His dad had been a doctor over there and it did not transfer. But all three of his sons became physicians. They are all practicing in Georgia.

What I have appreciated about the people who had to leave Cuba, who love Cuba to this day but cannot stand Castro, love America even more and have embraced America with this big bear hug and taken on all rights and privileges that, wait a minute, this is the land of the free, the land of opportunity.

I wanted to ask the gentleman, you do not really talk about your story so much, but I think it is important. A friend of mine back in Savannah named Herman Cranman wrote a book called ``A Measure of Life.'' In it, he talks about his World War II POW experience. He said he went into World War II as really a naive, young, idealistic kid and grew, of course, during the experience to see otherwise, but never lost his idealism.

But when he was captured, he said something very profound. He said as a born American living with freedom, freedom to me was like the water coming out of the tap in my kitchen. I didn't think anything of it until I turned on the tap and it wasn't there. When he was in a German POW camp, he found out what freedom was. What I have seen in you and in your brother and in Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is that you appreciate freedom every day, which we native-born Americans do not quite have the full view of so often. Yet I think in many cases people do realize it.

But here is what I want to know. Tell me about coming over here at 4. What were your parents doing in Cuba? How did you get out? Because I think people would be interested in that.

But he is still an immigrant and came over here.

No, I am not. But I do know that he was magna cum laude in Harvard and in Columbia.

Absolutely.

If the gentleman will yield, I just want to underscore that as I understand it, Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court all before the age of 40. One of them was pro bono for a death row inmate. He received unanimous ``well qualified'' ratings from the American Bar Association. That is their highest rating. He has worked in the Justice Department both under Democrat and Republican administrations and has demonstrated a commitment to uphold the integrity of the law and dedication to public service.

Estrada has received an outstanding rating in every performance category in his years in service in the solicitor general's office. And Clinton's solicitor general called him ``an extraordinary legal talent'' and genuinely compassionate. What is scary, if we compare his qualifications, because the gentleman from Florida has mentioned that they never had a Hispanic on that court, it is really to me after all we have been talking about freedom in America that we have to bring in this question of race, but it does seem there are those in the Senate against Mr. Estrada that may be aware of that. Maybe it is as simple as they do not want the Republicans to nominate somebody who is Hispanic. They want to have the lock on it. Maybe that is the idea; I do not know.

But I do know this, that if we compare Miguel Estrada's qualification with Merrick Garland, Garland was 41 when he was nominated, 44 and 41. They both were Phi Beta Kappa. They both graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. They both did the Harvard Law Review as editor. They both have served as law clerks for the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit. They were both law clerks for the U.S. Supreme Court. They have both done 7 years private practice. Mr. Estrada was 2 years with the Assistant U.S. Attorney; Mr. Garland, 3 years. They were both with the U.S. Justice Department, in Estrada's case, 1992 to 1997; in Garland's case, 1993 to 1997. They both had bipartisan support. Garland, 100 days before the Senate approved his nomination. Estrada, 631. The only difference in this category is race, 631 days compared to 100 days.

If the gentleman would yield, this obviously never was a problem until a Hispanic came before the Democratic Senators. The reason I say that is five of the eight judges serving in the D.C. Circuit had no prior judicial experience. That includes two of President Clinton's nominees, Mr. Garland, whom we talked about earlier whose justice record was quite similar to Mr. Estrada's, and David Tatel. It also includes Judge Harry Edwards, who was appointed by President Carter in 1980, and Edwards was younger than Estrada. Five out of eight of them did not have to have judicial experience, but suddenly a Hispanic comes along and this is a big issue. Another thing that is interesting is that on the Supreme Court now, two of the judges, Byron White, nominated by President Kennedy, and William Rehnquist, the current Chief Justice, had no prior judicial experience when appointed to the Supreme Court, but now it is a different program, a different standard.

The other thing that is interesting is that the Democrats who are trying to torpedo Mr. Estrada also will claim he does not have Hispanic support, which I would say, number one, this is not a poll, this is not a popularity contest; but, number two, he actually has the endorsement of the League of the United Latin American Citizens, which is the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights organization; the Hispanic National Bar Association; the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the Hispanic Business Roundtable; the Latino Coalition; and many other Latino groups. They are all supporting him, and yet that does not count, I guess.

I wonder, because we talked about immigrant patriotism before, maybe their problem, after all, is not that he is Hispanic. Maybe their problem is the fact that he is an immigrant and therefore more pro-American than the average person, and they cannot stand the fact of a patriotic, God-fearing family and country-first American sitting on the judicial bench, which, in my opinion, we need a heck of a lot more of.

I never met Mr. Estrada, but that is what he sounds like. If he is anything like the Diaz-Balart brothers, I know he is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I have to ask the gentleman, since he kind of dodged my early solicitation for personal biographical information, how old was he when he was first elected to Congress?

The reason why I asked, when the gentleman and I came to Congress we were both a little bit younger. But the reality is here is a guy 41 years old. He is a star, a rising star. Maybe the Democrats think that they can put a notch on their holster if they shoot this guy down and stop him in his tracks.

I hope they do not. I hope he continues to rise, not because he is young, not because he is a Hispanic, not because he is an immigrant, but because he is pro-American and he wants to do what is right, and that is what we need on our judicial benches all over America.

I thank the gentleman, and thank him for everything he does.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 10 a.m.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the distinguished ranking member for raising the point about the first responders. And I want to say as a member of the committee I certainly want to do everything I can to support addressing this issue with the first responders. It is very important. And yet at the same time, I think we need to go ahead and pass this resolution today because, Mr. Speaker, it is unfinished business, unfinished from last Congress. There were a lot of dynamics that kept us from passing it. Frankly, it kind of got away from the Committee on Appropriations, otherwise, I think we would not be standing here today.

But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we need to get this off the table so that we can move on to other things, addressing the economy, addressing Iraq, addressing Medicare and a prescription drug benefit, some of the things that I hope the President will talk about tonight when he addresses this Chamber.

One of the things I want to mention is in terms of the situation in the Middle East, and I guess people are reading what Mr. Blix and the weapons inspectors' report is, and they are spinning it their own way for their own convenience and their own purposes; but it is very clear that it is a very difficult question that Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction, terrorist and biological weapons. And the question is not so much, well, he won the scavenger hunt, but did he prove that he has disarmed. And I think most people will agree that that has not been proven.

I make these remarks, Mr. Speaker, because in my district a week ago I stood dock side at Savanna, Georgia, and then boarded a ship called the U.S.S. Mendonca, which was named after Private Leroy Mendonca, who was killed in the Korean conflict on July 4, 1951, who was a member of the Third Infantry Division. That ship is a special cargo roll-on, roll-off ship that was loading along with its sister ship about 450,000 square feet of tanks, Humvees, personnel movers and helicopters, on their way to destinations not clearly known.

A few days later I stood at the dais at Hunter Air Field and watched some of America's youngest, finest and most experienced and some of the older soldiers boarding airplanes going off to Kuwait. As I shook those soldiers' hands, and I went out there a couple of times, and I want to say parenthetically, great work is being done by a group called Southern Smiles, the U.S.O., and the Red Cross in terms of giving these soldiers some very needed personal items, but as I stood there and said good-bye to these soldiers I thought, they are going off to do their job, and now it is our turn and my turn as a Member of Congress to go off and do my job in Washington, D.C. and that is to protect the country as we see it from our standpoint, often through legislation and usually through appropriations. And, therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we get this bill finished up so that we can start the appropriations process once more for the coming term with a special eye to the troops overseas, and not just in the Middle East, but all over the globe.

We have a very troubled universe as we know it, but we have got to get our modernization continued. We have to

have our troops ready for any contingency, and we have to have the quality of life of soldiers in mind at all times.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this House to support this resolution and let us get on with next year's business.