Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, imagine in your own household if, for every dollar you spent, 40 cents was borrowed. Obviously, you would sit down with your family at the kitchen table and say, Okay, for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. We're going to have to change our purchasing habits. That's what American families do; that's what farmers do; that's what small businesses do each and every day. Yet, for some reason, the U.S. Congress thinks it can defy gravity and not worry about this deficit, which is now $1.5 trillion. The debt is nearly 90 percent of the GDP, and we owe much of this money to China. We have got to make tough decisions. It is not time for partisan politics. We need to come together as Democrats and Republicans and do what American families, farmers and small businesses do every day, every year. We need to reduce spending and turn this ship around.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds. I just want to point out that I understand and hear what the folks are saying, but we are in a situation where we have an existing farm bill. If we do not do this, it is going to cost American taxpayers $682 million. That was the WTO agreement. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Ag Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. Farr.

Mr. KINGSTON. I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. I would remind the gentleman from Oregon we are going to reauthorize the farm bill next year, which is what this is all about. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I stand in strong support of the Rehberg amendment. I do so because of this very controversial health care bill which was passed through strong-arm tactics last year during a time period when the American public was crying out against it. This was a product of the backroom deal-making in Washington, D.C. This is one reason why the Democrats lost control of the U.S. Congress. It wasn't so much the bill; it was the process. But let's talk about the bill. An individual mandate that's already been ruled unconstitutional by two judges, a mandate which the Governor of Alaska is saying he is not even going to implement the rule. This is hardly a law that's bringing America together. This bill needs to be put on the back burner, and let us retool it and rework it. I believe that's what the Americans want us to do. It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. One thing that's abundantly clear is people do not want the insurance companies telling the hospitals and the docs how to conduct medicine. But they sure as heck don't want government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and all of the hundreds of new agencies and the IRS agents coming in and telling the doctor how to conduct medicine. The cost of this--there is not one credible report that says this will bring down costs. And I keep hearing this hollow cry from Democrats, suddenly with 15 million people unemployed, that they are concerned about jobs. I haven't met in the First District of Georgia or anywhere else I have traveled in the country one business person who says this is a great bill. And I want to say this about 26-year-old children: As a father of four, and I have three kids under 26 years old, they are old enough to take care of themselves. They don't need the nanny state coming in. I have raised them to be responsible. At the age of 21, I expect them to go out and get their health care. You know, the average age in Vietnam I think was 19 years old. World War II, probably the same. And we have soldiers in harm's way all over the world who can take care of themselves. But we are saying but come home to mommy and daddy, we will take care of you until you are 26 years old.

Mr. KINGSTON. And let me say this, Mr. Chairman. If you talk to the Nation's Governors, Democrat and Republican, one of the biggest drains on their expenses right now, on their budget, is Medicaid. Yet this bill increases the Medicaid rolls by 16 million people without funding it. If we want to break our States, we need to keep this bill. If we want to help them, we need to repeal it.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KINGSTON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We keep hearing from the Democrats that we're here and that we're not doing a jobs bill. Why are we doing this bill? Why are we doing this bill now? It's because you guys did not pass a budget. We are on FY11, as you know, because you did not take care of your business. We are reaching back, trying to finish up what you guys should have done by October 1 of last year. By the way, this does create jobs, because the small businesses do not want government-mandated health care; and the folks back home don't want bureaucrats coming in between the doctor-patient relationship, which is what ObamaCare does. Now, we know the nanny state wants full control from cradle to grave, but folks back home don't want it. That's what November was about. So what we're trying to do is finish up the unfinished business of the Pelosi House from last year so that we can move forward on the coming year, FY12. We will continue to have this debate, but we are trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship, not create a doctor- bureaucrat-patient relationship, which ObamaCare does.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, in 2004, the WTO, the World Trade Organization, found the United States guilty of illegal subsidies to American cotton farmers. It's been a long process, but Brazil is a very important ally of ours. We get along fine. They are very important to us strategically in our own hemisphere, so we want to get along with Brazil. And because of that, we worked out this settlement which kept Brazil from putting retaliatory tariffs on us. That saved us money. If we did not agree to this--which Mr. Kind has pointed out--$147 million, we would have to pay $829 million. This is less, and it only is in effect until the farm bill is passed. In the 2012 farm bill, we'll deal with that. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, who will explain why this saves $682 million and complies with WTO laws.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say about this and to my friend from Oregon is, I believe we should put farm subsidies on the table. And that's why in this bill we have included cuts to very popular agriculture red state, if you will, programs, rural development, the Farm Service Agencies, and the NRCS. All kinds of conservation programs are cut in this. However, there are a number of traditional farm programs that we are going to let the ag authorizing committee deal with, because that's where they need to be dealt with. So I want to say this. While I oppose the gentleman's amendment, I don't oppose you seeking a reduction to the subsidies. But we believe that this has to be dealt with in the farm bill. And I look forward to working with you and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on that when it comes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I have one more speaker, and we will close with him.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield? When the gentleman is ready to yield, I want to say we support the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I have to ask my friend from New York if sheep are carnivorous. Do they bite human beings? That's my question. I understand that they can be carnivorous.

Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say that the ag section of this bill cuts $5.2 billion. Three to four of those billions comes straight from production agriculture, not from school nutrition and other socially sensitive programs. I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. KINGSTON. So there's not a feed subsidy for them. I just want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, because I understand there was an incident. We do support the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to make three points real quickly. Number one, we have shown in this bill that we understand our mandate is to reduce spending. We are going to take on ag subsidies. Number two, we have already shown that in this bill with cuts to rural development, Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And, finally, we talk about next year? This is last year we are debating. We are debating the year in which planting decisions have already made. This is last year's budget we're still working on. That's why we can't do this in the midseason. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. I'm sitting here hearing what a wonderful organization the U.N. is, and I can't help but wonder: Where in the heck were they during Rwanda? Where were they? I would love to yield the floor to anybody out there. You know, that was the most miserable failure and genocide that the world has seen in modern times. Where was the U.N.? And we all know they were absolutely nowhere. There were 800,000 people killed, slaughtered, an absolute genocide; and it went from, I think, April until July 6, 800,000 people killed with machetes on the street, and the U.N. spent the whole 3, 4 months debating the definition of genocide. The U.N. is not there when you need them. The U.N. spends lots of time condemning Israel, lots of time on anti-United States jabs. They aren't being helpful so far that I can see on Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, or anywhere else in the Middle East where the pot seems to be boiling over. But I just remember so vividly genocide in Rwanda and the U.N. not being there. I would suggest to people, you know, we all want to read books. Read the book ``Hotel Rwanda.'' Read the book, ``We Regret to Inform You, But Tonight They Are Coming for Our Children,'' about the genocide in Rwanda. There are lots of books, and it's well documented on how absolutely worthless the U.N. was.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say to my friend from Athens, Georgia, where you do not have beaches, you know that the local share, once the Corps of Engineers does a cost-benefit analysis, which it always does, there is a requirement the State and the local government kick in. The State gives a pretty good amount of money. But the reason why they may be more motivated from a economic basis is they directly benefit from the economic impact. I do agree with you the Federal Government should not be worried about the economic impact, but where the Federal Government is most concerned is in flood control. As you and I know, the more sand you have in between you and the high tide when the hurricane comes, the more protected you are going to be. And as long as we have FEMA that writes checks after disasters and a National Flood Insurance Program, there is a good reason that the Federal Government is involved with beach renourishment. It has nothing to do with recreation, really less to do with economics, but a heck of a lot to do with flood protection. And that is why the Federal Government is involved in it. So to my friend from Athens, you are welcome to come down to Tybee Island anytime you want to despite this irresponsible amendment of yours. But I am going to oppose it, and welcome you to come. Bring your own suntan oil.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to this amendment. And I do so as a proud RSC member and somebody who fought hard to get us to $100 billion in this cut, who has pledged to work for more cuts in fiscal year 2012. I support the Goodlatte balanced-budget amendment and the spending cap. But I have got to say to my conservative friends, when you cut across the board, who do you think is going to be in charge of where these cuts come from? The EPA Director, who is putting in the clean air and all the greenhouse emissions stuff. Do you think she is going to cut that out of her budget? What about the Department of Justice? You think they are going to take this out of the lawsuit money to Arizona? What about the EPA that came up with a law that dairy farmers had to have an emergency response plan if they spilled milk because it was considered an oil? What about the immigration department? Do you think they are going to back off their priorities, or do you think they are going to implement RSC priorities? You and I have some disagreements with the administration, so I don't see why it helps us to empower them to make the decisions on where this 5 percent will come from. Because I can say if I was them, I know what I would cut, and it would not be the priorities that you would have.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to my friend in the well, the gentlewoman from Minnesota.