Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. It is an outrage.

Mr. KINGSTON. 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.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. As tempting as it might be.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. 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.

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON. 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.

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

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

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON. 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.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON. 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.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. 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. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely.