Bill Shuster

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I wanted to talk a little bit more about the politics of this. And, again, I want to read something that The Washington Post wrote on March 13. I took bits and pieces out of there, but I think it is pretty consistent throughout the whole editorial. And again to remind my colleagues if they have forgotten, The Washington Post is no friend of the Bush administration, and it is no supporter of Republican causes. But I will give The Washington Post credit that it takes a position, thinks about it, and comes down many times on the different side of the issue, or at least they are thoughtful about it. And this Washington Post editorial, ``The Pelosi Plan for Iraq, it makes perfect sense if the goal is winning votes in the United States. ``The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that the U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi Government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year, a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi Government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008. In fact,'' The Washington Post says, ``it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave. ``In short, the Democratic proposal . . . is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. ``Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with `massive civilian casualties,' as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be regional war that sucks in Iraq's neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent. Whether or not any those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone. ``Ms. Pelosi's strategy leads not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.'' And, again, that is coming from The Washington Post. So don't listen to a Republican Member of Congress from Pennsylvania, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania. Listen to what The Washington Post has to say. And they are pointing it out over and over again: this is a bad plan; this is a bad war supplemental. And, again, I believe that it uses our men and women in harm's way as bargaining chips and it makes it more dangerous for those men and women in Iraq. And it also is going to destroy their morale. If they find out they are going to be pulled out in 2 months or 6 months or 18 months or whatever the Democratic proposal is, which we are not quite sure, what is going to give a young marine or ranger the will to go kick in a door where the bad guys are when he sits back in his quarters and says, Well, I could be out of this place in 3 months or 6 months. I mean, it is going to destroy the morale of our men and women. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to welcome here tonight and yield to one of our newest Members of the House from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And I think you are right. I think it is important. I think that one of the things that we learn as citizens, we learn here in Congress, is your word. Your word is what matters, and if your word is good, then people trust you and people know they can count on you. And I think that is exactly your point. If we pull out in Iraq, our word to not only our enemy, our enemy knows that if we pull out that our word is no good to stay there and fight them, but our friends around the world are going to say you can't count on America. And I think that is an extremely important point, and that is maybe the core of this. We need to stay and make sure the Iraqi people have control of the security on the ground. And I think that while it is too early to tell if the new strategy in Iraq will succeed, there are tangible indications that it is working. The joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown is fulfilling its primary objective to reduce violence in Baghdad. Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent. Execution-style deaths have decreased by nearly half in the last month. Iraqis are taking on an increased role in security of their country. Nine of the Iraqis' 10 army divisions are taking the lead in areas of operation. And today almost 329,000 Iraq security force members are working to secure their country. And the political benchmarks are being met. Last month the Iraqi Government approved a budget, approved a national hydrocarbon law, and just last week they convened a regional conference of 13 nations to discuss these concerns. So things are moving forward. There was a poll out, the largest poll done in Iraq in the last couple of years, the London polling firm Opinion Research Business found that in a survey of over 5,000 Iraqis that by a 2-1 margin, Iraqis prefer living under the current system than they did under Saddam. So there are positive signs there. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for coming down. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SHUSTER. I think the gentleman makes an excellent point. This country, there are people in this country, the political discourse, we agree, we disagree, we debate, but the wonderful thing about it is we can do it, and people aren't tortured and drug off to prison and killed. As a matter of fact, I was on the Mall last week in the morning with another colleague of ours, and we went up to the war protestors. They had their tents up and their signs up. It was really quite a magnificent picture of the war protestors, and behind it was the United States Capitol. I started to talk. We were talking about why they were opposed to the war and why I wanted to continue to support our troops there. I said, you know, in some countries of the world, Iraq, Iran, many of those countries, almost all of those countries in the Middle East, you cannot be doing this. They wouldn't allow you to do this. In fact, they would kill you. They would take you off and kill you possibly. And you would be lucky if you were killed because most of the time they would torture you before they would kill you. So this country is a great country, and what we are doing over there is we are trying to help a nation stabilize, trying to help a nation build a democracy, and that is not easy. That is difficult. As our colleague from Ohio pointed out, the Revolutionary War in 1776, it took 13 years for the Constitution. A story I like to tell, because it happened in my district, during the first year of George Washington's second term, we had already got a Constitution, we elected a President, George Washington, not once, but the second time. In that first year, the Whiskey Rebellion occurred in western Pennsylvania. The farmers in western Pennsylvania didn't like the tax, so they revolted. So George Washington, it was the only time that a Commander in Chief mounted up on a horse and took the soldiers into the field, had to ride up into western Pennsylvania and put down that rebellion. We as Americans sometimes forget that it took us a long time until we were able to establish democracy. So it is not easy. We need to remember our history, that it takes time. It takes time especially when you are a nation that has never known democracy; never known democracy, but certainly has that feeling, has that sense of wanting freedom. I think that there is no doubt that the Iraqi people, as well as any person, any people in the world, or every people in the world, want freedom. They have a desire for freedom.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for joining me and appreciate that report on the revenues to the government. Once again it proves that tax cuts do work. It increases the economic activity in this country, which generates more revenue not only for the government, but for the good people of America that are out there working hard every day. They are able to put more of that money into their pockets instead of sending it to the bureaucrats in Washington to spend it. I think it is important on this fourth anniversary that we did speak about what is happening in Iraq, and most importantly what is going to happen on this House floor. The American people, I was told by Colonel Walt Piatt in Afghanistan when I visited there a couple years ago, and I was talking to Colonel Piatt, who is from my district, and we were talking about the effort and the needs of the troops and the military equipment, and he said to me, you know, America's power is not its soldier, it is not its weaponry, it is not the bombs we create. The strength in America is the will of the American people, because if the soldiers know that the people are behind what they are doing, in support of what they are doing, they can accomplish anything. I think what is going to be said here on this House floor, because the House, we are the people elected, we are the leaders elected from our districts, 435 districts, and what we say here is going to go a long way in whether we are going to be successful in helping the Iraqis building a democracy, in stabilizing that country and helping long term what is going to happen in the Middle East. So it is going to be very critical what is said here on the floor in this war supplemental. Are we going to use it as a political ploy, use it as a bargaining chip, use our men and women as bargaining chips to get spending to things that don't belong in this war supplemental, or are we going to do the right thing, and that is you support our men and women with the funding that they need? Are we going to support them? That is going to be a large step in proving to them that we are with them, that we are behind them and that we are not going to put in arbitrary deadlines that are going to give our adversaries and our enemies a leg up on us. So this is going to be an absolutely critical week for America. It is going to be a critical week and a defining moment I believe for the majority party, because I don't believe, and I think it is pretty clear, the American people don't like conflict, don't like war, don't like death, don't like destruction. Nobody likes that. But the American people do not want to lose in Iraq. I think that is very clear. And this war supplemental, putting in these arbitrary timetables, is a prescription for that. It is micromanaging this war by the politicians in Washington, just like many on the other side of the aisle say is what happened in Vietnam. That was wrong in Vietnam, and yet they are standing up on the House floor this week and the past couple weeks proposing that we do just that, micromanage this war. 435 Members of the House, 100 Senators, they are not the Commander in Chief. The Constitution is clear. When you are fighting a war, you need one leader. When you are fighting a war, you leave it to the professionals, you leave it to the generals, you leave it to the colonels, you leave it to the men and women that are trained to do this, not bring it on the House floor. And as I said and as The Washington Post has said, trying to micromanage this war is the wrong thing to do for the Iraqi people, it is the wrong thing to do for the American people, and it is the wrong thing to do for the men and women that are in harm's way. So I hope we are able to come together on this House floor and strip out many of those things that are in here that just make it unworkable and bad for the American people and the military.

Mr. SHUSTER. May I interrupt the gentleman for a second? Did you say we are not going to have an open rule? Because I was under the impression that the Speaker and the leadership of the Democratic Party campaigned that they were going to have open rule after open rule, and they weren't going to put bills on the floor that didn't give the minority their rights. Are you telling me that it is not going to be an open rule on this supplemental?

Mr. SHUSTER. I think it is absolutely right, and I think the gentleman is right to point out that is really going to be a defining moment for many Members of this body, especially our colleagues on the other side, who, as you quite eloquently pointed out, that the choice is either stay and fight and have a strategy work to help the people of Iraq or get out. So I hope the folks that come down here, and there were some here tonight that have come down night after night and for the last several months have talked about the need, the desire to get out immediately, we are going to see. Are they going to stand up and be true to what they have been talking about to the Nation on this House floor for the past several months, or are they going to bend to the will of their leadership? As well there are other Members on the other side of the aisle that have said they will not stand for micromanagement of the war, they will not stand for putting timelines in to give our enemy the ability to fight a different kind of war and hurt and kill our soldiers. So this is going to be a defining moment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the past 2 months, myself and others have been coming to the floor to talk about the impending tax increase that we face in this country if the majority doesn't act in something just under 1,400 days, and we will see this huge tax increase and all the majority has to do is run out the clock. They have to do nothing to see this tax increase be put back in place when the tax cuts that we passed in early 2001, 2002, 2003 will expire. But tonight we are coming to the floor, and we think it is fitting to talk about the fourth anniversary of Iraq and what is happening in Iraq and, most importantly, what is going to happen on this House floor we think this week but maybe not until next week. It was fitting tonight that we had a moment of silence for our men and women in harm's way. It was very fitting. But it is also fitting that the United States Congress is very clear to the men and women in harm's way that we support them. And we don't just support them in standing up on the House floor talking about it, but we support them in a concrete way, and that is making sure that they are getting the funds that they need, making sure that the United States Congress is sending a message to our enemies around the world that we are behind them; that we are not going to shortchange them; that we are not going to pull the rug out from under them; that we are not going to put a time line in place that is going to allow our enemies to know when and what we are going to do, we let our enemies know that they just have to run out the clock. And if they run out the clock, that we are going to be gone and they are going to be able to be back in Iraq, they are going to be back in other places around this world doing harm to many people, including Americans. So it is absolutely important that our men and women know, and this supplemental is going to be the key. It is going to be the key for our men and women to know that we are behind them. And what the majority party is putting forth, at least we think what the majority party is putting forward, has created a confusing and inflexible timetable for the Americans' withdrawal from Iraq. From what they have said, and we only know in press accounts and I will read many of those press accounts, and I would encourage you to go to www.gop.gov and see last week's press conference with the leadership of the majority party, the Democratic leadership talk about their plan, and just watch it for about a minute and you will see just how confusing it was to not only the American people but to the leadership of the majority party. As I said, they have put in place timetables for withdrawal, with forces leaving as early as July 1 and concluding their removal no later than August 2008. Now, we can talk and talk and talk, but our enemies see that, and they will just go back into the shadows and they will just wait until we are gone to be able to wreak havoc on Iraq and the Iraqi people. An example of what is in the supplemental, at least that is what we have heard, we are not sure but this is what we have heard: that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of deployment that this unit is fully mission capable. Now, if that is not micromanagement, I don't know what is. I think the lessons of Vietnam have been lost on the majority party. That is micromanaging the war. That is what caused us great detriment in Vietnam. The next thing is: the President certifies in writing to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable, he is required to fill a report detailing the particular reason or reasons why that unit's deployment is necessary. If that is not micromanagement, I don't know what is. We have one Commander in Chief, clearly stated in the Constitution, not 535 commanders looking to micromanage a war. This requirement ties the hands of the President in committing more troops to fighting required by red tape and lengthy explanations, cost of time, and the risk of lives. That is micromanaging the war. I think it is very, very clear. And, again, I would urge anybody that is interested to go to the Web site and see the Democratic House leadership's press conference last week, and you will see just how clearly they are confused. So how can the American people not be confused? How can our men and women in harm's way not be confused about what this Congress, what this House is about to do? Just a couple of press accounts talking about the supplemental. The Washington Post, The Washington Post described the Democrat plan as: an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard to the war itself. Micromanagement. The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times called for the bill to be vetoed. Imagine that. And I quote the Los Angeles Times saying this, not me: It is absurd for the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, San Francisco, to try to micromanage the conflict and the evolution of Iraqi society with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks. The Los Angeles Times is saying that; it is not the Washington Times. If it were the Washington Times, my friends on the other side of the aisle would say that is a conservative paper. But it is the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post saying this. Now, my friends on the other side like to talk about the Iraqi Study Group, and the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group did not advocate, I repeat, did not advocate a firm timetable for withdrawal in its December 2006 report, because those folks knew that it was a bad idea to give our enemies a time certain as to when we would be out of Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate released in January warned of the perils of an early troop withdrawal. And it said: If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. More death, more destruction. Now, you can't have it both ways. You can't stand up and quote the Iraqi Study Group and the National Intelligence Estimate and pick out bits and pieces of it. There are certainly things in there that they said that we all need to pay attention to, but these are extremely important statements that were made. I am sure I can go on and on quoting newspapers around this country that say similar things that The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are saying. And, again, I want to remind people what the Los Angeles Times said: It is absurd for the House Speaker to try to micromanage the conflict and the evolution of Iraqi society with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks. It is absurd for us to give our enemies a timetable for them to know when to lay back so they can regroup and wait until we leave, so that they can go back into the country of Iraq, set up bases, and wreak havoc on the people of Iraq. The other thing about this supplemental that is distasteful to me and I believe others on the other side is that they have loaded this supplemental with spending. They have used our troops as a bargaining chip to increase domestic spending. Now, our troops deserve better than that, not to be used as a bargaining chip. This is a supplemental. This is for emergency spending, this is for the war, this is for something that our troops need. And I hope that those on the other side that have talked on the this floor night after night about irresponsible domestic spending, that they won't stand for it to be put in a supplemental that is to be used for emergency spending on this war. Republicans rejected last year $14 billion of domestic spending not related to the war. We had a clean supplemental. And I hope my friends on the other side will reassess what they are about to do and use this supplemental, use our men and women in harm's way as a bargain chip.

Mr. SHUSTER. And the gentleman, the point he just made is they try to compare Iraq to Vietnam, and it is not a good comparison at all. But, when the United States Congress is going to make an attempt to micromanage a war, that is going to be a comparison to Vietnam, and the same outcome is going to be not a good outcome. And like you said, the disaster that occurred, what happens after we leave and there is a disaster, human disaster of people, mass exodus from the country? So I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out. And with your background, you are most qualified to do that, point out some of the things you pointed out. I would now like to yield my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway.

Mr. SHUSTER. I most certainly will.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Thomas D. Miller, who after 33 years of distinguished service is retiring from his prestigious responsibility as Chief of the Blair Township Police Department. Chief Miller has had a successful and prominent career with many achievements and recognitions. Chief Miller's law enforcement career began in 1974 as a part-time patrolman and quickly made his way up the ranks with his dedication to serving the community. In 1980, 3 months after being hired as a full- time police officer by the Blair Township Police Department and elected Constable of Juniata County, he was promoted to Assistant Chief. On March 13, 2001, Chief Miller was appointed Blair Township Chief of Police. His devotion to duty and commitment to the community can surely be drawn upon by future police officers. Chief Thomas Miller's career in law enforcement has brought him recognition for his courage and bravery. He was awarded the Silver Star for Bravery from the American Police Hall of Fame, as well as the Legion of Honor Award from the American Law Enforcement Officers Association for his courage, bravery, and allegiance in the performance of his duty following an incident that occurred on March 27, 1985. He is also an active member and participant in the Blair County DUI and Drug Task Forces. Chief Thomas Miller's character does not go unnoticed and is sure to bring him the most rewarding experiences in life. Chief Miller also recognizes fellow officers' spirit and bravery being a member of the Blair County Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Foundation. Madam Speaker, Chief Thomas D. Miller has been very active in both professional and personal activities throughout Blair Township, Pennsylvania. Chief Thomas D. Miller is a great citizen of Blair County and we are honored to recognize him for all of his work and accomplishments. I congratulate him and wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Patrick Crawford of Bedford, Pennsylvania, who has been named ``2007 Pennsylvania Superintendent of the Year'' by a committee of his peers from the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators. This distinguished award is given annually and is part of the National Superintendent of the Year Program sponsored by the American Association of School Administrators. It is presented to further inspire exemplary leadership and promote a sense of confidence and pride in our Nation's public schools. Dr. Crawford will be recognized in March at the American Association of School Administrators Conference on Education, where the national recipient will be chosen among the State nominees. Dr. Patrick Crawford has been superintendent of Bedford Area School District since 1996. His outstanding service to the Bedford area has included several noteworthy programs. The Superintendent's Leadership Academy, a 2 year leadership program for high school juniors and seniors; the Bedford Teacher Technology Academy, a staff development program that advances the use of technology in learning; and the Classrooms for the Future initiative which will place laptops on the desks of every high school student in the district. These initiatives all take precedence on the future of education in the Bedford area. In addition to the time he spends as a superintendent, Dr. Crawford dedicates much of his schedule to the betterment of the Bedford community. He has worked through organizations such as the Pennsylvania Leadership Development Center, the Blended Schools Virtual Learning Consortium, and is serving on the Learning Lamp Board of Directors. He is also active in community organizations, such as the Sunrise Rotary Club of Bedford and the Bedford County Chamber of Commerce Youth Leadership Program and Education Foundation. Nominators of Dr. Crawford cite his excellent vision and leadership in guiding his colleagues toward innovation and excellence, yet Dr. Crawford selflessly announced ``what this award really demonstrates is that there is a whole team of people who are working to make Bedford Area School District a better place.'' This modest educator is truly a wonderful asset to the Bedford area, as well as the State of Pennsylvania, and is most deserving of this prestigious honor.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Absolutely. You talked earlier about the stories that we want to have sent to us, talking about real-life stories out there in America, how these tax cuts have helped them or what they are feeling in the economy or what they are feeling about their government. You can e-mail us at countdowncrew@mail.house.gov. That is countdowncrew@mail.house.gov. I received an e-mail, and I wanted to read some of it to you. It is from Kent Berry, who is a small business owner from Gravel Ridge, Arkansas. I have never been to Gravel Ridge, Arkansas. It is about 15 miles north of Little Rock; and over the past months, Kent has been watching us. Kent says he is swamped by Federal tax regulations which are driving him down. He goes on further to say: ``More and more I feel that the deck is stacked against me. I witness so much nonproduction being rewarded with money which I had to struggle to remit. I'm beginning to feel that the American Dream is an optical illusion. I'm starting to envision the American Dream a lot like the carrot and stick. I keep pressing but it ain't gettin' no closer.'' Kent continues: ``I'm no constant agitator or perpetual malcontent, but I do enjoy C-SPAN and I did hear your e-mail address several times, and I'm writing to say that I'm struggling here. ``Government, like a lot of things, is a good thing. But like all good things, moderation.'' And as Kent points out there, he is struggling out there because he has got a small business. He works hard to earn the money that he earns, and then he has to turn around and pay a tax bill that is bigger than he can probably handle. If we do not extend some of these tax cuts, the tax bill is going to be even greater for Kent. I know his story and his feelings are like millions of Americans out there that want to make certain that if they are going to invest their capital, if they are going to invest their blood, sweat and tears into a small enterprise, that they have the ability to get a return, that they have a ability to save some money, that they have an ability to make sure that their family lives a little better life than they have. This is the American Dream, as we have talked about a couple of these folks from your district and some from mine, that they start from meager beginnings and with hard work, with ingenuity, they grow a business and become significant parts of their communities, giving back to their communities. Those are the types of people that we want to make sure that they are not penalized, that they are not driven out of business because they have to have some big tax bill when they pass away, you know, whether it is taking that money and investing it into a mutual fund so they can get a nice dividend back and they are not overburdened with taxes, whether they take their company or their business or their property and sell it and do not have an oppressive capital gains tax. As you mentioned, most Americans do not take the money and bury it in the backyard. They put it back into the economy. They invest it in a mutual fund. They invest it into another business or a property that builds something, but that money goes back into the economy to create jobs and to hopefully when they invest that money create a return for them so they can continue to live a good life. Again, through my district, there are a number of people. I have mentioned the name before, a B.C. Stone, another one of those operations started out in a garage. I visited with those folks about a week or so ago. They started out in a garage and today with a couple of employees, and today they employ 70 people. Their business is prosperous. It is growing over the last 4 years, and Travis Collins, one of the owners, says it is directly because of the various tax cuts that we put in place. The economy is moving, booming, and so his business right along with it. As I mentioned before, he has taken on an old hotel in my hometown of Everett, Pennsylvania, an over 110-year-old hotel, and he is restoring it and turning it into a 12-bedroom hotel with a first-rate restaurant in it. By doing this, he hopes he is going to make some money, but he really wants to give back to the community and this beautiful, small town that he grew up in and this hotel, quite frankly, was dilapidated. He is putting a fresh face on it, and he is going to try to attract people to come into the community, to spend money through tourism. Again, these are the kinds of things that happen when you allow people to keep more of their own money. They invest it, they grow their business, they try to create jobs and make their communities better places to live and to work.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the floor tonight again, my colleagues and I, to talk about something that is of great concern to us, great concern to the American people. And that is that, in just 1,398 days, there will be one of the largest tax increases in American history, over $200 billion, and that is going to occur if the majority party does not extend the tax cuts that the Republicans put in place in 2001, 2003 and extended some of them in the last Congress. But that is going to happen. This huge tax increase is going to occur in America. And the Democrats don't have to do anything but run out the clock. If they sit on their hands, sit on the ball, we will see, in 1,398 days, as I said, one of the largest tax increases that the American people will have ever experienced. Some of my colleagues on the other side have talked about the change that took place in this body, and there was a change. But I don't know anybody in America, nobody that I talk to in the Ninth Congressional District of Pennsylvania or across Pennsylvania, that voted to see their taxes get increased. Over the last several months, over the last few years, several years actually, we have seen this economy move forward creating jobs. In fact, over the last 4 years, this economy has created 7.2 million jobs. It is because of those tax cuts that we put in place. The unemployment rate in America is at 4.6 percent. It is the lowest average unemployment rate in the four decades that we have experienced over the last three or four years. Once again, if we don't extend these tax cuts, the American people are going to see more of their hard-earned dollars being sent off to Washington. If you look at a family of four that makes $40,000 or so combined income, has two kids in their family, if we don't extend these tax cuts, if the majority party, the Democrats in Congress, don't extend these tax cuts, people in that income range are going to see an increase of about $2,000 or $2,200 a year. Some in this body may think that is not a lot of money, but I know to the hardworking people in central Pennsylvania that earn $40,000 in income, $2,200 is a lot of money. You can take that money and that is a nice down payment on a car. You can buy a new washer and dryer machine. You can save that money for college for your children. If you take that $2,000 or $2,200 a year over the next 10 years and invest it in a mutual fund returning about 5 percent income, that would grow to $30,000 in the next 10 years. That is a significant amount of money to send your child off to one of the higher education institutions in our country. I think that the majority party ought to take a lesson from one of their own. Back in the 1960s when President Kennedy came into office, he cut taxes. What happened was that the economy grew and revenues to the government grew. We look back at history to President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. He did the same thing. He cut the tax rates. The economy grew, it created jobs, and, lo and behold, more revenues flowed into the Federal Government. That is again what we did in 2001 and 2003. We cut taxes, and history has repeated itself. This economy is one of the strongest economies in U.S. history. We are getting record levels of revenue coming into the government. So what we need to do is to continue to keep those tax rates low, extend those tax cuts. Unfortunately for the American people, and that is one of the reasons we come to the floor on a weekly basis and talk about this, to make sure we bring the attention to the American people, make sure they are aware of what is going to happen, the Democrats, they said it very clearly in their campaign rhetoric in 2006, that the leader of the Ways and Means Committee, the new chairman, has said time and time again during that campaign election that he didn't know of any of President Bush's or the Republican tax cuts that deserve to be extended. One of the first things they did when they became the majority party is they made it easier, not harder, but made it easier to raise your taxes. When the Republicans controlled the House, we made it the rules of the House that you couldn't raise taxes unless you had a three- fifths vote in the House to raise taxes. One of the first things the Democrats did was to make it easier. They decreased it to a simple majority to raise your taxes. They put in place PAYGO. It should actually be PAYTAXGO, because it is going to make it easier for them. They are not going to touch any existing programs, but on new spending they are going to have to offset any new spending; and the way to offset that, the easiest way, is to increase taxes. I believe, as I believe many Americans believe, that that is what is going to happen. The American people need to know this. We hope that people are tuning in and listening to us as we talk about this. We call ourselves the Countdown Crew. We are 1,398 days away from this huge tax increase unless the American people speak up, unless the American people talk to their elected officials and say they are not going to stand for a tax increase. We have created a Web site, and we would love for you to e-mail us and let us know, give us your story of how the tax cuts, whichever one, whether it was the child tax credit, or the accelerated depreciation, dividend tax cuts, the death tax, which one of these tax cuts has benefited you. We would like to hear your story so we can talk about it. There are millions and millions of Americans out there, young and old, low and medium income, that have benefited by these tax cuts. Our Web site, I guess it is our e-mail, is countdowncrew@mail.house.gov. Once again, there are some stories tonight. Later on in the evening we will be sharing with you that people around the country have sent us e- mails about how important these tax cuts are to them and how detrimental it will be to their small business or their family or communities across America. I am pleased to be joined tonight by one of my colleagues from Kentucky, Mr. Davis. I yield to Mr. Davis to talk about some of these issues tonight.

Mr. SHUSTER. How many people does George employ?

Mr. SHUSTER. That is small business personified, that 25 people. Those are the kinds of stories that I think we need to bring out.

Mr. SHUSTER. Absolutely. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I just wanted to know what size business that was and make sure the American people know that we are talking about people in their neighborhoods, in their communities, that employ 25, 30, 50, 100 people and that start from small and turn these enterprises into successful businesses. In most cases, my experience has been those small business owners, they are the backbone of the community. They are the ones that give to the local little league team. They are the ones that contribute to the hospital and the hospital boards. They are the ones making sure their communities are wonderful places to live, or are helping to make sure they are wonderful places to live.

Mr. SHUSTER. As soon as next week, the Democratic majority will be introducing their budget. It is my guess that they are going to spell out exactly how they are going to increase taxes on the American people to pay for that budget. They are going to have a choice. The choice is going to be either to continue the tax policies which have resulted in record job growth, 7.2 million jobs over the last 4 years, 40 quarters of an expanding economy; or they are going to choose to put the brakes on the growth of this economy by raising taxes. I am going to predict tonight that if they decide to choose to raise taxes, which all indications lead me to believe they will, the brakes will go on this economy in very short order. One of the important reforms that we as Republicans made when we were in the majority was to reduce the taxes on dividends and capital gains. In past history, dividends and capital gains were sort of viewed as only the fat cats in society, only the wealthy get to benefit by a reduction in taxes on dividends and capital gains. But that is not the case today. Over 60 percent of the American population is invested into mutual funds and the stock market, into various other financial vehicles. It is widespread in the economy who invests and who can benefit from a decrease in the tax on dividends and a cut in the tax on capital gains. Prior to 2003, tax cut dividends were subject to individual income taxes up to 38.6 percent on top of corporate taxes of 35 percent. It was double taxation. The corporations in America that you invested in, if you invested in General Motors or you invested in Wal-Mart and they made a profit, they got hit with a 35 percent tax increase, and then they paid out their dividends to the millions of people from all walks of life who invested in those corporations, and the dividend, it was hit at a tax rate of 38.6 percent or below. Among developing countries, only Japan has had higher tax rates on investment income than us. In 2003, the top individual tax rate on dividends was cut by more than half down to 15 percent. Starting next year, there will be no dividend tax at all for lower income Americans which is absolutely essential to continue growth in this economy. In addition, capital gains tax increased, with the top rates on long- term capital gains dropping from 20 and 10 percent down to 15 and 5 percent. The 5 percent rate will drop to zero next year for those in the bottom two tax brackets. Again, for families in the middle and lower income that have investments, they are not going to be taxed on those types of investments, or it is going to be significantly decreased. Those lower tax rates have promoted a strong and growing economy, and has created 7.2 million new jobs. Our job creation in the last 4 years is greater than the European Union and the Japanese economy combined. This has been an economy that has grown strong and created millions and millions of jobs. Again, if the Democrats fail to extend the tax relief, in 2010, those rates will return to where they were before we lowered them, and the American people are going to experience significant tax increases. Because seniors rely on income from investments, they have benefited greatly from those lower taxes. That is why it is important. They are one of the key groups in our economy that have benefited by it. The Treasury Department has estimated that 8.5 million seniors saved an average of $1,144 on their 2005 taxes as a result of lower rates on dividends and long-term capital gains. And $1,100 goes a long way towards buying something new for your home, whether it is a washer and dryer, or whether it is a senior giving it to their grandchildren to help them out as they make their way in the world and go to college and try to get an education. According to the Tax Foundation in an analysis of IRS data, more than half of all taxpayers over the age of 65 received dividend income in 2004. Over half of the folks over 65 years of age are receiving dividend income. That is double the national average for all taxpayers. Seniors also rely upon capital gains income. That same Tax Foundation report found that while nationally less than 13 percent of taxpayers claim capital gains income in 2004, that figure cost 30 percent, a third for taxpayers between the age of 65 and 74, and more than 27 percent for those over the age of 75. Seniors benefit greatly by the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. On May 10, 2006, Flora Gramma Green, a national spokeswoman for the Seniors Coalition, described the importance of lower dividend tax rates for seniors living on a fixed income. She said, ``When I planned for my retirement, I needed the dividend income just to have a secure retirement. I am not wealthy. I worry every day if I will have the money to buy the gas I need to get to the doctor, I worry if I will have the money I need for proper nursing care as I get older, and I worry that the monthly income I plan for will stretch far enough each month to let me pay my bills. The millions of fellow seniors who benefit from this tax reduction are in the same boat I am in. We need this tax break just to continue the safe and secure retirement that we planned for.'' Those are the words of a senior who is certainly involved in the fight to continue to keep these tax rates low, to see that the tax rates are extended so that in just 1,398 days, which will be January 1, 2011, which is a short period of time away, we will see this $200 billion tax increase, and it is going to cut across all income spectrums, from low income to high income. These folks are going to have to send more of their money to the Federal Government and not be able to put it back in the economy, creating jobs in the most efficient way that an economy can create jobs.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to mention his full name, but I had a conversation with a gentleman today who is a local businessman and employs about 120 people in one of my counties back in Pennsylvania. I am just going to call him Harold. I had a conversation with Harold on the phone today, and it was about the negative impact of these tax increases if we don't act on them. As I was talking to Harold, he has been in business. Actually, his father started the business. Harold has been in it for 40 or 50 years. They started out with a couple of dump trucks and a bull dozer. Today they have a tremendous amount of equipment. They are an excavating business. They employ 120 people. But Harold's wife, Delores, just had a health scare, and so Harold has been looking at the business and what would happen if he were to pass away. He said, you in Congress need to pass the death tax because if you don't, if I pass away, it is going to cost his children millions, up to several millions of dollars in taxes that they are going to have to pay in Federal and State tax, mainly Federal tax, to keep the business. He said, my children won't have access to that kind of cash, so they will have to liquidate the business if I were to die. There are thousands of stories like that across America, that we need to make sure that we are extending the death tax and making sure that small-business owners like Harold and Delores, if they pass away, that their children will not have to liquidate a business because you have 120 families that they employ making a good living, living in rural Pennsylvania, that are potentially not going to have jobs if that were to happen. Also, something that I think is important, as you mentioned, you were a small business owner, and I was a small business owner before I got here. Harold is the kind of guy in Pennsylvania, he is one of the pillars of the community. He is the guy that is always contributing to the community, giving back, whether he is on the hospital board or the economic development board. He is the guy making sure that he is contributing to the local Boy Scouts, to the Little League, making sure that the firemen have money, that he is supporting their efforts to raise money as they struggle to keep their ambulance and fire service going. Those are the kinds of people, small-business owners, that have been in business for many, many years, that give back to their community, give back to their community and give back to their community. Those are the kinds of people and those are the kinds of communities that are penalized with a tax like the death tax that would cause a business, one of the pillars of the community, to have to liquidate to raise the money to send it down here to Washington, to come into the Federal Treasury, and it would go out again probably 50 percent or 60 percent less of what came in. It would be less efficient than Harold being able, or Harold's family being able, to give back to the community and get the most impact out of a dollar. Again, those are the kinds of people. I had a lunch with a gentleman in a similar business as Harold, gentleman by the name of Dave I will call him, who is the same type of person, started a business, told me about growing up on the farm in rural Pennsylvania, saying he did not have any money; he did not know any better. But he started out a with a flatbed truck hauling coal from the coal region of northeastern Pennsylvania back down to central Pennsylvania. That is how he got started, and today he has 200 employees, three different businesses, and is another gentleman who gives back to the community again and again and again. That is what we are talking about. That is what makes America great, coming from a poor farmer to a prosperous business owner and a pillar of the community. Again, that is what makes America great. These are the kinds of people all across this country we have to make sure that we are not penalizing for being successful. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. SHUSTER. Just in our closing minutes here, I want to reiterate, first of all, say we have been getting up here for the last several weeks talking about the coming tax increase, unless Congress and the Democratic majority acts, which will occur in 1,398 days, which will be January 1, 2011, and that occurs in 2008, some of the taxes, if they are not extended, will expire, 2009, 2010. Again, we want to hear from citizens around the country that have benefitted by these tax increases, tell us your story about your small business, how it has grown or how you started it. You can get those stories to us at the countdowncrew@mail.house.gov. We want to hear those stories. Again, I want to close with just talking about what's going to happen with the dividend and the capital gains tax cuts if we don't act. January of 2010, those rates will go back up. As I mentioned earlier, when folks think about those dividends, whether you have a mutual fund, you have an IRA, you have a 401(k), you have some pension fund out there. By and large, if not all of them, almost every one of them, is dependent on investments to put income in and pay out to the beneficiaries. Prior to a 2003 tax cut, dividends were subject to an individual tax rate up to 38.6 percent and on top of a corporate tax rate of 35 percent. Those types of rates are coming back unless this Congress and unless this Democratic majority acts. In 2003, the top individual tax rate on dividends was cut by more than half, down to 15 percent; and starting next year, that dividend, no dividend tax on income, on lower- income Americans. That is substantial. In addition to capital gains tax decreased with the top rates on long-term capital gains dropping from 20 and 10 percent down to 15 and 5 percent, and, again, the 5 percent rate will drop to zero next year for those in the bottom two tax brackets. If the Democrats fail to extend this tax relief, again, in 2010, they are going to come back, and anybody out there in America that is retired, anybody out there, as I said, that has a 401(k), a mutual fund, they are going to be taxed at a higher rate on those dividends. So it is important that we act. That is, again, why we come to the floor once a week and remind the American people that this tax increase is coming. You need to talk to your Member of Congress. I do not believe that anybody in the November elections voted to increase their taxes, and your Member of Congress needs to hear about it. We have to stop it because we want to see this economy continue to grow and to prosper. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to close? The gentleman from Texas arrived, too.

Mr. SHUSTER. We certainly appreciate you coming here over the past several weeks. It is always good to have a CPA on the floor to be able to correct us when we spout off a number that is not quite accurate. You have been able to do that a number of times with us. We appreciate it. I just want to point out again to people that may be watching tonight, such as a CPA, a small business owner. I was a small business owner. We all have children. Your children, I know, are grown now.

Mr. SHUSTER. But it is important in America that small business owners and families are not burdened with these heavy taxes. We have to keep them low. I think the gentleman from Kentucky might have a final passing word.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, one of our greatest strengths as elected officials is the opportunity to bring to light truths that are little known and command recognition. Today, as the Co-chairman of the House Azerbaijan Caucus, I would like to bring to the attention of this body the tragedy that took place in Khojaly, Azerbaijan, a town and townspeople that were destroyed on February 26, 1992. Fifteen years later, there is little attention or interest paid to the plight of Khojaly outside of Azerbaijan. Sadly, Khojaly, a town in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, now under the control of Armenian forces, was the site of the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians. According to Human Rights Watch and other international observers, the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces, reportedly with the help of the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment. This crime led to the death of 613 civilians; including 106 women, 63 children and 70 elderly men; 1,275 persons were taken hostage, and the fate of more than 150 remains unknown. As part of the population tried to escape the town of Khojaly, they encountered violent ambushes and were murdered. According to the Russian organization, Memorial, 200 Azerbaijani corpses were brought from Khojaly to Agdam within four days, and it was discovered that they were subjected to abuses, torture and mutilation. Human Rights Watch stated that ``we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces.'' At the time, Newsweek Magazine reported: ``Azerbaijan was a charnel house again last week: a place of mourning refugees and dozens of mangled corpses dragged to a makeshift morgue behind the mosque. They were ordinary Azerbaijani men, women and children of Khojaly, a small village in war-torn Nagorno-Karabakh overrun by Armenian forces on 25-26 February. Many were killed at close range while trying to flee; some had their faces mutilated, others were scalped.'' Time Magazine stated ``While the details are argued, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of deaths--the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians have been slaughtered, most of them women and children--is unknown.'' Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) from Albania, Azerbaijan, and the United Kingdom stated in May 2001 in Written Declaration No. 324 that the ``Armenians massacred the whole population of Khojaly and fully destroyed the town.'' Khojaly was the first significant Azerbaijani settlement overrun by Armenian forces in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The forces next overran the Nagorno-Karabakh districts of Zangilan, Gubadli, Fuzuli, Aghdam, and Kalbajar, as well as the towns of Shusha and Lachin. Altogether, the occupied territories represent roughly 20 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan. And, altogether roughly one million Azerbaijanis were evicted from their homes over the course of the Armenian-Azerbaijan war. On January 25, 2005 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe overwhelmingly adopted a resolution highlighting that ``considerable parts of Azerbaijan's territory are still occupied by the Armenian forces and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.'' Armenian Defense Minister, in an interview with British journalist Tomas de Waal openly admitted that ``Before Khojaly the Azerbaijanis thought that . . . the Armenians were people who could not raise their hands against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype].'' Madam Speaker, the tragedy of Khojaly was a crime against humanity and I urge Congress to join me in standing with Azerbaijanis as they commemorate this tragedy.