Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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).

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. KINGSTON. 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.

Mr. KINGSTON. 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.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I know I can leave my house in Savannah, Georgia, basically take maybe two or three roads to get to I-95 and 10 hours later I am going to be in Miami, Florida; and if I go north on it, 10 hours later or depends on how fast you drive, of course, but I can be north of Washington, D.C., almost in New York City, can go up to Maine. Interstate highways started as national defense, moving our military for safety, lots of ideas, but behind the interstate highway system for national security, under President Eisenhower; but today, they have also been a huge boon to rural economies. Anywhere that there was an exit ramp, there is now a truck stop, a gas station, a convenience store, a fast food store, a retail outlet; and interstates have created tons of jobs in the United States of America.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is we hear from some people, well, we should not interfere in Iraq. It is like oh, yes, these people deserve to be oppressed and put down, and they do not deserve freedom; and now that they have been liberated, we are hearing the same people saying, well, democracy will not work, as if they are intellectually challenged, that they cannot handle it. I wish these people would just for one time turn their wrath on France, just for the day, just for the day and say, maybe France should not have issued a passport to Saddam Hussein and his family. Gee whiz, boys, that was bad. Or, gee whiz, garcon, I guess I should say. But it is amazing. They are not going to quit and they cannot stand the fact that the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, was right. They cannot stand that.

Mr. KINGSTON. It is very disappointing, but I hope that the President can work with them and see if he can get something done. The other thing is the President was elected, and let him get his team in place. It should be that simple. I just wanted to cover these topics and wanted to ask the gentleman if he had some other topics that he wanted to conclude with.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I know for the 34 constituents that I lost in Iraq, and I believe the six to 12 in Afghanistan, I am certainly not going to forget them; and I am going to do everything I can to help promote Iraqi democracy and also jobs in America. We have got a good bill on jobs this week. I am looking forward to voting on it and supporting it.

Mr. KINGSTON. One day you will be lucky enough to join the ranks of all of us who are married. And when that happens, you and your wife will start, well, let us say right now you are in the 20 percent tax bracket and she is in the 20 percent tax bracket, but when you get married and your income becomes one, suddenly you will be in the 25 percent tax bracket. And the only thing that happened is you walked down the aisle together and made an oath, and that is not right. It penalizes people from getting married. It encourages people to live together. It does not make sense. We are trying to end the marriage tax penalty. Another thing we are proposing to do in order to create jobs is to reduce the tax rates. Rates going from 28 to 25 percent, from 31 to 28 percent, from 36 to 33 percent and 39.6 to 35 percent. Again, it is common sense. And the interesting thing is that Democrats have already voted this on a bipartisan basis. All we are saying is let us accelerate this because the economy needs help now. And, unfortunately, sometimes you wonder in this town because everything else under the sun seems to happen, you wonder if people would rather have the economy stay in the tank so that their political party is benefited. And I think that is a sick thing to do if you are playing with people's jobs and people's future just so your party can do well.

Mr. KINGSTON. It does get ridiculous. We are also doing something I think that is real important, and that is, we have passed H.R. 6, our energy bill. One of the things that small business people need and middle-class American tax payers need are lower energy prices, in the gasoline for their car and the heat and oil for their house and the electric bill for their air conditioner, whatever it is. If we could get an abundant, inexpensive, clean energy supply, it will really help the economy, really help create jobs; and our energy package does lower our dependency on foreign Middle East gasoline and fossil fuel, which, of course, gets into national security and all other kinds of issues; but it also searches for alternatives like hydrogen fuel, fuel cell vehicles, and puts in lots of money for research so that we can get off fossil fuel and improve technology for smart buildings and energy-efficient houses and structures of all nature. That is going to help create jobs, and I am glad that we were able to pass that out of the House. We need it passed by the other body, and we need to get it to the President for signature. The faster we do that, the less dependent we will be on fossil fuel, the more energy alternatives there will be.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last week I went to a memorial service for the 34 soldiers from the third I.D. at Fort Stewart basically for their loved ones, but the 34 soldiers who died. It was interesting as I talked to the wives and the mothers and the children of these soldiers that none of them were saying, well, he died in vain. It was not that. It was, now we have to continue working for Iraqi freedom and for Iraq's future and do everything we can. Otherwise, he would have died in vain. It was a very touching ceremony, because the patriotism of the families of these fallen soldiers did not flinch one bit. It was unwavering. Very, very courageous statement, just being there and sitting in the stands during the service; and there are 34 sets of boots with the rifle and the helmet and the dog tags jangling in the wind and yet, at the same time, sadness and a great promise of tomorrow juxtaposed. I believe that we have an obligation for those soldiers to continue and do these things. The audacity of countries like France. Now there is a French company that actually serves the United States Marines. It is a multimillion dollar contract that they have, I think $81 million, just a tremendous amount of money, a French company serving the United States Marines. We are going to continue to work on the Department of Defense to give favoritism to American companies, or allied companies, or coalition companies, and not countries like the French. I mean, can we imagine that while these soldiers were dying and the Marine Corps was counting their casualties, the French companies, on the backs of the American Marines, were counting their profits? It is sickening for me to think about in terms of the French dealing with Iraq behind the scenes, the French issuing passports. Unfortunately, we have a lot of Democrat Members of Congress who are real proud of this and look to France for leadership. I just think it is absolutely inexcusable.

Mr. KINGSTON. Another way we are working in the House to help create jobs is with a good roads program, good infrastructure. Not everybody wants to live in the city, and yet we all have to kind of go to the city eventually. Maybe it is for a particular hospital operation, maybe just to buy something, maybe for entertainment, maybe for a job; but if you can have good roads that connect small towns to the large city, it is good for the economy in both places. I represent the Port of Savannah and actually all of coastal Georgia, but I also have rural areas. I have 29 different counties in the first district that I have the honor of representing. One of the things I want to do and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) wants to do is get a way so that the producer of Vidalia onions can get it overseas faster. Agriculture right now, so much of our market is a matter of overseas. I think this roads transportation program incentive for alternative uses like bicycles and electric cars, I think all that is going to help creates jobs, too. In Atlanta right now there is a project called Atlantic Station. It is right here where I-85 and I-75 split in downtown Atlanta, and it was a brownfield. Then they went in there and reclaimed the land and cleaned up the polluted areas; and now they are building a regular community that will have some high-rise office buildings, some condominiums. It will have some retail places, a movie theater, parking underground; and the bridge that goes over I-75 and I-85 linking that to the traditional downtown part of Atlanta, more of the road is used for pedestrians and bicycles than it is actually for trucks and cars. That is an example of something under our transportation bill that can happen all over the country. I hope that when you are visiting Georgia sometime you will have the time to see it because it is actually tomorrow's road for tomorrow's economy and tomorrow's community, and it is something exciting; but our TEA-21, which is our roads bill, again jobs, and it is going to be passed out of the House. So we are going to continue to do everything we can for small businesses.

Mr. KINGSTON. The Chair is an intelligent man and he has seen the Pelosi-Gephardt plan. There is not one. Has the gentleman seen one from the other body? There is not one. What do we have? Nine Democrats, I had not read the paper in a week, might be up to 10 or 12, nine Democrats are running for President of the United States; and I have not seen one of them introduce a plan, and I believe at least two of those candidates are Members of this body. It is good that they are running for President because it gives more competition, and more competition is good for the political process, like anything else; but while you are a Member of this body, should you not be introducing your own jobs tax relief plan, growth plan? We do not see it and you would think if there are any Democrats who are going to offer a plan, it would certainly be the ones who are running for President; but we have not seen it. Another thing that is in this plan that I think will help the economy is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) calls a 515 plan and that is reducing the tax rate and the capital gains rate on dividends and capital gains: if you are in the 10 percent bracket, down to five; if you are in the 20 percent bracket, down to 15. Again, I think it is real common sense that why would you reduce the capital gains tax. The idea is if I can sell something and keep more of the profit in my pocket, then I am more likely to sell it, and when I sell it and that dollar turns over, it stimulates the economy, and it is great for small business, great for the American middle-class taxpayer.

Mr. KINGSTON. The other things we are doing in order to help small businesses and we think it is very important to help small businesses because that is still 70 percent of the employment in this country, and, unfortunately, large businesses come and go. And it is a tremendous loss. We just lost a paper mill in St. Mary's, Georgia that I represent, 903 jobs. Those jobs are probably gone permanently. We hope something will happen to make that statement not the case, but unfortunately that is what it is looking like right now. Small businesses, you can lose one or two of them and the economy still moves along. But depreciation, faster depreciation, increasing the bonus depreciation from 30 to 50 percent and extending it another few years, again so small businesses can make investments and write them off faster, and we believe that is going to be very healthy for small businesses. Also allowing them to have a 5-year net operating loss carry-back for 3 years, and that will help small businesses recover from some of the losses they have suffered under in this post- 9/11 economy. And then, finally, increasing the expensing from 25 to $100,000. All of this is going to help your bicycle shop, your pet store, your clothes store, your tire store, all the small Main Street businesses back home. And we believe if you can help them you will do a lot for that NASCAR race fan. I always say what we need to do is build tax policy around the NASCAR race fan. The mom and dad have a household income, one of them makes $50,000 and the other makes about $60,000, the household income anywhere from 75 to $120,000. They have two and a half kids. They are the first in country, first in church, first in patriotism, first in paying their taxes, first in rolling up their sleeves, doing a fair job, and also do not ask for the government for this or that. They do not come to see you and me in Washington, D.C. They do not have an agenda. They do not come here to lobby for this loophole or for that expenditure. They are just good folks in America. You can find them all around the country, from Miami to Savannah, from Maine to San Francisco. They might not truly be a Nascar race fan, but if you go up there and stick and use that as your guide, you are going to take care of America; if you take care of that family, and by taking care of small business I believe we are taking a major step in that direction.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud to be here this afternoon, and wanted to talk some about the issues that we are facing here in Washington. I am proud to say that while the national news has really focused, and rightfully so, on the war in Iraq, the House has not only supported our military efforts, but we have been working on a very good, pro- growth, pro-jobs domestic agenda. We have a good jobs package that will be voted on this week, we have passed a good energy bill, we have passed a good education bill, and we will be working on a Medicare reform bill very soon. So I am optimistic about the things that the House has been doing. We hear a lot of partisan politics and a lot of bashing. I guess one of the things that is frustrating to me is that while we hear people, as one of the previous speakers was talking about tax breaks for the wealthy, and that just seems to be the Democrat buzz phrase for hatred and division in society, what I have been curious about is tear down somebody else's policy or plan, if you want to, but offer your own. It is always curious, we do not hear too many alternatives from the other party. I say, look, hey, this floor is the great hall of debate. Whether you are liberal or conservative, urban or rural, bring your ideas to the floor. Offer your ideas in the form of amendments. Offer your ideas in the form of legislation, and let us see what we can do. Bring the best of the Democrats, the best of the Republicans, together to do what is best for America. It is always disappointing when you hear people just attack legislation when it is clear they have not even read the bill. Yet on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you cannot take the politics out of politics, so what the heck, let us just move on with it. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the war in Iraq. I have to continuously brag about the 3rd Infantry Division in Hinesville, Georgia, Fort Stewart. I am wearing their patch on my lapel, which was given to me by the wives organizations down there. I am very proud of what they did. We followed them up the Euphrates River as they marched on to Baghdad. 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. KINGSTON. Here we are, we have just come through a war, we have jobs that we need to create. We have an economy that we need to turnaround, and yet there are Members apparently of the other body who are content to make one of the most highly qualified judicial nominees a big issue. It is such a double standard. If he had not been Hispanic, in your opinion, would he have been approved by now?

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say this: on I-95 in coastal Georgia, we have something like 55,000 cars a day that go down, and all that we are asking them is to stop and leave a little bit of their money in Georgia before they go to Florida and spend all of it.

Mr. KINGSTON. It is sad when you think France was the country home to the great Lafayette who fought so hard for American freedom and whose portrait hangs on the floor of this Chamber. And yet look at the modern Frenchmen. Boy, have they strayed from the love of freedom. To them security and safety is paramount among anything. And, unfortunately, you do not see France really being a world leader anymore. You see France being a world critic. But there are a lot of French companies that are doing business in America who are suffering, and there are a lot more who are going to hear a lot more in the future, because I think before the Department of Defense issues any more contracts to French companies it will have to go through a lot of congressional scrutiny. Let me ask you this: In terms of the economy right now, one of the things we want to do is create a lot of jobs as possible. And I am glad that in the House we have been working on a good domestic agenda and we have got a good jobs package that is coming up. And I am going to be supporting that. It has a lot of different elements in it to give growth to our economy, but there is a child tax credit, increasing the child tax credit to a thousand dollars. Now, the gentleman is single, but I have four children and I can tell you that really means a lot to the families of this country. Children are very, very expensive. You have to buy washers and dryers. You buy tennis shoes. They lose tennis shoes. You buy a book bag. They wear it out. You cannot buy a sedan any more. You have to buy a station wagon or a Suburban. You have to have the extra seatbelts to drive carpool with. If the kid wants to take tuba lessons and, God bless him, tubas are very expensive, you have to pay for the tuba rental and somebody to teach them. You have to buy the school band uniforms and the cheerleading uniforms. A thousand dollar tax credit is actually very, very modest. And if it had been indexed to inflation, it would be worth probably 2 or $3,000 very easily from the time we put in the $500 tax credit. But a thousand, making it immediate this year, I think is a step in the right direction.