Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman is right. Investment money is going to sit on the sidelines until the government sets the rules and keeps them. Businesses can adjust. Even if the rules are a bit excessive and high and unreasonable, business will adjust to it. But if you keep changing it, they can't adjust. So of course investment capital is going to sit on the sidelines. That's just economic common sense.

Mr. KINGSTON. I certainly am. I wanted to ask the gentleman from Missouri something.

Mr. KINGSTON. As I understand it, this theater tomorrow, this summit at the White House about health care, I want to make sure I understand, is it health care only? Certainly they're going to talk about jobs. We had the stimulus program when the unemployment was less than 8 percent. It is now over 10 percent. The stimulus program, which was over $800 billion, was spent over a year ago, it's deficit spending, it's borrowed money, and it was supposed to keep unemployment from going to 8 percent, now it's up to 10 percent. Certainly tomorrow at the White House the topic isn't going to be more spending for a government health care program. Certainly they do plan to talk about jobs. Am I correct or incorrect?

Mr. KINGSTON. I understand there's some special interests for Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, and those are the deals we know about because those were a little bit more visible. But you can imagine all the other oddball stuff in there, the hospital wings that will be built here and there.

Mr. KINGSTON. And, you know, not to mention there will be a new tax on individuals because, you know, when you're forced to buy something, that is a tax. And so there would be less money for customers of small businesses on a discretionary basis. Whether they're buying hamburgers or clothes or tires or whatever, they'll have less of it in their pocket.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, again, the American people do understand this Pelosi-Obama-Reid health care package. And, you know, I think one of the great examples of government efficiency we saw in August, Cash for Clunkers. It was a program, actually pretty simple program. You turn in your old gas guzzler, you trade it in for a more fuel-efficient car. We give you a tax credit. They take your old car, put it out to pasture and put it down. And, you know, it's kind of an easy thing to follow. Stimulates the car dealerships. Well, that program was supposed to last from August to November. It was a $1 billion program. I think they hired 100 employees, came back a week later and said they needed 1,100 employees and $3 billion. And even doing that, Cash for Clunkers was dead and defunct within a matter of weeks. So you now feel that that same government that brought us Cash for Clunkers, a $3 billion program, is going to be able to run a $2 trillion health care bill.

Mr. KINGSTON. It absolutely does. But the thing I am saying on this Federal Reserve spending is that neither Senator nor President Obama has spoken out against that. He embraced the TARP bill, the Wall Street bailout, with both arms. That is $700 billion. Then there was $410 billion for the omnibus spending bill. And then, as you pointed out, $800 billion for the stimulus bill. Now he is proposing $950 billion for this government health care plan. And yet he still says that he wants to reduce spending. I'm on the Agriculture Committee. We had a hearing today with the Secretary. I think the Secretary is a very decent Secretary. But the proposal of the administration is to freeze agricultural spending. Agricultural spending has gone up 26 percent since 2007. Yeah, you have a run on the bank----

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield a second.

Mr. KINGSTON. With more to come. More to come. As you said, cap-and- trade, but you did not mention the banking bill. This is another financial takeover. And you know, I haven't seen a lot of wisdom behind the government-knows-best mentality of the Pelosi House.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I would say if the gentleman is saying it's an arrogant power grab, he certainly is accurate, and that's apparently the model that he wants to have. The gentleman may also have quotes from Senator Joe Biden, who denounced using this nuclear option, as well as Harry Reid. When they were in the minority, I think they were right. When we were in the majority, I think we were wrong. I don't think you should do that. I think that it is a desperation thing. And if you can't get the requisite number of votes, maybe you need to start all over on the legislation. But you do have very strong, unequivocal statements by Senator Obama, candidate Obama, Senator Reid, Senator Biden and yet total hypocrisy, that's what it is, is hypocrisy at this point. The gentleman was talking about needing Republican votes. They do not need a Republican vote to stop anything or to pass anything. It's not just with this $950 billion health care bill; they could pass a jobs bill without a Republican vote. They could pass the tax-and-trade bill without it. They could get out of Iraq or Afghanistan without a single Republican vote. They could have energy independence without a Republican vote. They could pass that card check, that special interest bill for unions, without a Republican vote. Why aren't they doing it? I just think that they had no idea that America was not asleep at the wheel. They found out in Massachusetts, and they're scared to death, hey, this might not be an isolated election. So we are seeing a lot of backpedaling right now. It's hilarious when you see some of these people, like the Senator from Nebraska who had the special interest deal on the health care bill. Now, he is all over this jobs bill. Oh, too much spending. You've got a $950 billion health care bill which he supports and a $15 billion jobs bill that he is against because of the spending. Only in this town.

Mr. KINGSTON. I can't imagine what the Harry Reid U.S. Senate was thinking. How stupid do they think the American people are? How callous can they be to the sense of fair play? What kind of almost thuggery is it when you do that to people? It just doesn't sound right for the taxpayers all over the country to have to float the bill for one State. And as the gentleman from Missouri pointed out, there was also a special interest deal for Florida. And I think the presumption was people are Christmas shopping, they're getting ready to have their families in. They're not paying attention. Let's just push through whatever we can. Well, a funny thing happened in Massachusetts. They were apparently paying attention, and I think that that has woke up a lot of people around here. We have a group in the House called Blue Dog Democrats. I am not exactly sure what a Blue Dog is because they certainly vote like the yellow dog Democrats from what I can understand. But I don't think there is any distinction except there is a lot of Democrats right now who are saying, Hey, I saw what happened in Massachusetts, and if this bill comes back, I think I am going to vote ``no'' and maybe make up for my ``yes'' vote previously.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I want to tell you one of my rules experiences at the Rules Committee. Now, remember, the Rules Committee, when the bill is passed by, say, the Agriculture or the Education or the Energy Committee, it goes to the Rules Committee and they determine how long it's going to be debated and what amendments will be allowed and what amendments won't be allowed. That's why they're called rules. Four hundred thirty-five Members, you've got to have rules, strict rules, or you won't get anything done. I was going to the Rules Committee. I had submitted an amendment, and I was waiting my turn to present my amendment to the Rules Committee for their consideration. And a staffer wrote me an e-mail and said, Your amendment has been rejected. Do you still want to sit in here and present it? I said, Well, how could it be rejected? I haven't presented it and until I present it they can't reject it. And my staffer said, I have some inside information. I've got a friend on the majority. Your amendment is not on the list. I said, Well, what list? The list of amendments they're going to allow. I said, Well, this is just a total farce. You have Members of Congress sitting in a crowded room waiting their turn to present an amendment, and the Rules Committee behind closed doors had already decided which ones they were going to take and not take.

Mr. KINGSTON. You know what's interesting about that bill, though, is dispute that strange route that it went for the strange product that wasn't passed by the committee, we still had a decent debate on it and passed the bill. The importance of that is if you want open debate on health care, we now have an example that shows, hey, you know what, it works. This was a health insurance related piece of legislation. We had an open debate on it. It didn't have special deals for Nebraska or Louisiana. It did not have a big price tag on it. It had some Republicans against it, some Republicans for it, and the thing passed. Oh, hey, what about doing that on everything else about health care? Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment in democracy?

Mr. KINGSTON. How many Democrats did vote ``no'' in the House, do you remember? It was 220. You need 218. So there were two votes over 218.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me just ask both of you, should Republicans take over this House, would you be willing to change the House rules to say any bill has to be posted online at least 72 hours before it's voted on; would you support that?

Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I was looking at the Tea Party list of priorities, which they call a contract from America, which you know, this is a grassroots deal, just popped up. And there are even different Tea Party groups. But they have nationally been surveying their members on what their priorities are. The number one priority is to cut the size of the Federal Government spending. The number two priority, would the gentleman from Iowa like to guess? The number two priority of all of these thousands of participants on a grassroots' basis is, do not put something in the bill that doesn't belong in the bill. So as the gentleman talks about these secret deals to the senator in Nebraska, the senator from Florida, the senator from Louisiana, people don't like that at all. If it's such a great deal for the good people of Nebraska, maybe it ought to go for the rest of the 49 States and maybe it doesn't need to be brokered in some smoke-filled back room. So what you're saying is very important. It can't be understated. If this bill is such a great deal, why do you need to have all of those special interest side deals in order to get the votes from Nebraska or from Florida or from Louisiana?

Mr. KINGSTON. I am an appropriator, and I can tell you, generally all appropriation bills have been open rule. There have been a few rare occasions when we were in the majority that we had maybe a modified rule or a closed rule, but traditionally open rules were always the case on appropriations bills. When all else failed, at least there were appropriation bills to allow the minority party an opportunity to put in some amendments. But the iron hand of the oppressive majority has closed down that system. It's not about Republicans versus Democrats; it's about 435 people who have been elected by 600,000 people to represent their views in their Nation's capital.

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, the amazing thing is, I was in the State legislature, and we had, out of 180 members, 26 Republicans, and yet the philosophies were still reflective of the State of Georgia. You could roughly say one-third of the people were fairly liberal, one- third of the people were fairly conservative, and then another third were either right of center or left of center. And so you had to have the legislative deliberations to get a bill in order to get, for the Georgia House, 91 votes to pass something. So I assumed that Congress would be the same way, where you would have some people from really safe hard left, hard right districts, and then people maybe from more swing districts where it's reflective of the American people, but every bill would have the mark of both parties on it. I was shocked when I came here and saw that it's full speed ahead with the majority party. I think that's why, when we took over the House in the 104th Congress, we had open rules. And you know what, we strayed from that. That was one reason the people threw us out and put the Democrats in. But now they've seen the Democrats, and they are sick and tired of this partisan stuff. They do want open debate on C-SPAN and amendments. So you know what would really be nice? If Mr. Akin offers an amendment and I vote against it and you vote for it--and it's okay to vote against your party members. And maybe you prefer a Democrat one. But you know, once you understand something, you have the opportunity to debate it, as we did today, you get a better bipartisan product. And so today, I don't know if the Speaker is in town, but perhaps she saw that and said, Oh, my goodness, so this is the way democracy works? Maybe we should do this on another dozen bills and cobble together a collection of health care reforms. Because it seems to me somewhere in the town meetings that's what people were saying; fix what's broken. Don't throw out the entire system. And if you did some one-shot bills, you could have targeted health care reform without some $950 billion government takeover of health care.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a friend and mourn and share the loss not just to the Murtha family, the State of Pennsylvania, but to the entire Nation, and certainly every man and woman wearing a uniform. I was proud to know Jack Murtha, proud to serve in the U.S. Congress with Jack Murtha. He was a bipartisan guy. He was a knowledgeable guy. He was a hardworking guy. The military budget in appropriations is over $500 billion. It is a very thick bill. You have to know airplanes from submarines, from tanks to battleships. Jack Murtha knew that, and he would study it very deeply. Jack Murtha, though, beyond being a professional Congressman, taught this Chamber many things. For one thing, I learned as a guy who came up through some partisan battles and some nonpartisan battles that the Murtha-McDade relationship almost cast a certain circle around the State of Pennsylvania that made it a special place, that the Pennsylvania delegation had something that the other States did not have, and that was two great leaders--Republican and Democrat--who kind of set the tone not just for the entire State but for the rest of us to see how things could be. And indeed, the Pennsylvania delegation has still had great fellowship because of that legacy. It was also reflected in his relationship with Bill Young. I can't tell you what a joy it has been for all Members of Congress who come and often see the battles that are so epitomized on the talk shows and the name calling and so forth, and you think that is Congress. And then you go into a committee room and you see Bill Young and Jack Murtha working together, not always agreeing but always affectionate and always having great respect for what the other one had to say. And indeed, I can tell you as somebody who served here 18 years, sometimes you couldn't tell who was chairman. They were that close and that united and that focused on what was best for the troops. What a great relationship. And again, what a great example for the rest of us. Jack Murtha was an old-school guy. He liked to have his bill done in a hurry. In fact, the chairman, Mr. Obey is there, and he knows while it was one of the largest bills, it was also one of the fastest bills to be passed so many times. He knew exactly where he wanted to go long before the hearing started. I remember I had an amendment that had to do with electronic verification of social security numbers for people working on Federal contracts. The chairman didn't like it. And I remember Mr. Murtha--I submitted it, I worked the committee, the subcommittee very carefully, and he said, ``Kingston, we're not going to do that.'' That was it. That was my hearing. And when he said that, you knew that was it. The curtain was closed. The case was over. And this same chairman could turn around and say to you, you've got a problem in Hinesville, Georgia, little old Hinesville, Georgia, a speck on the map, that because it's the home of Fort Stewart, the 3rd Infantry was expecting two more brigades, went out and built a lot of roads and schools and infrastructure in preparation for another brigade. And then the Pentagon made a turn and decided not to send it to them. And who stood up for Hinesville, Georgia? Jack Murtha. Who did I go to and say, Look, if we're going to make this happen, we've got to do something to help these people because the Pentagon has done them wrong. They stood tall for the military but now the military has let them down. We're not going to let that happen. And Jack Murtha pulled through. Not just on that issue but time and time again. Jack Murtha loved the United States of America. Jack Murtha loved the military. Jack Murtha loved the soldiers. He stood up not just for them, but for their families over and over again. Congress has lost a great leader, as has the State and the United States of America. But the American soldiers have lost a true friend and a passionate guy who would do anything for the man and woman in uniform. I say God bless Jack Murtha and his memory and everything he has done for the United States of America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Nanophotonic Biosensor Detection of Bioagents and Pathogens Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston Bill Number: H.R. 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 2010 Account: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Army Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Georgia Address of Requesting Entity: 111 Carlton St.--AHRC, Athens, GA 30602 Description of Request: The funding would be used to develop a rapid and sensitive means of detecting bioagents and pathogens that cause disease and rising mortality rates, particularly those that pose threats as agents for bioterrorism and military personnel. I certify that this project does not have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of me or my spouse.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say the concept of PAYGO sounds great, but it is an absolute fig leaf when you look at the practicality of it only applying to 2 percent of the budget. It's just not a genuine proposal. But I want to say this: I think it is good to have this discussion. But both parties have been spending too much money, and not just Congress, but the Federal Reserve. Just think about 2008. Bear Stearns bailout, $29 billion. A Bush stimulus bill in May of 2008, $168 billion. The Fannie Mae bailout, $200 billion. The AIG bailout, $85 billion, going now to $140 billion. And that was under the Democrat majority in the House, and President Bush signed it into law. So both parties have been in this mix. And then comes President Obama. A $787 billion stimulus bill that brought our unemployment from 8 percent to 10 percent. An omnibus spending bill, $410 billion. A health care proposal that costs over $1 trillion. Cap-and-trade that will cost American households $1,500 per house. And another stimulus bill that the Democrats, under Speaker Pelosi, just passed in December of about $60 billion. Ladies and gentlemen, both parties are guilty, but this is the essence of it. It is a tripling of the national debt. Therefore, we have a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a mechanism, an outside trigger to force Democrats and Republicans to come together and cut spending. But instead what do we do? We move the trigger. And the result is this. And guess who inherits it. The children. And Gen X and Gen Y, who will already not get Social Security because it is going broke, and Medicare that has $39 billion in unobligated debt right now. We are not facing what we need to do. Instead of moving the debt ceiling, we need to be going back into our spending and cutting spending, not kicking the can down the road for another Congress, another election, and another generation. Vote ``no'' on this. Let's stay over the weekend and start coming together to cut the budget.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. Especially if it is some of that good Tennessee music that you all produce.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, when I first came to Congress in 1993, we had computers but we did not have Internet. In fact, if it wasn't for Al Gore maybe we still wouldn't have it. I don't need to bring that up. But you know, the reality is most of us, and my friend Mr. Gordon will remember, did not have cell phones. And then I remember there was a discussion that I had with one Member about, ``You know, I don't think it is fair for the taxpayers to pay for your cell phone. I think it is unnecessary.'' And I remember when I got a cell phone I wanted to have a 912 area code, because I didn't want the folks back home to think I went Washington if I had the 202 area code. But now in essence everybody has a mobile phone, as they do Internet. I remember Stacy Hall, our receptionist, who was the IT person since she was the youngest in the office. She was probably 22, a UGA graduate. She got this thing called the Internet, and she started planning her weekends with her friends. Now, there were about five other 21-, 22-year-old kids on the Hill who knew what email was. So they started swapping. And then I remember eventually she told our scheduler about, ``You know, maybe you could use this like to schedule the Congressman.'' What a radical idea. And before you know it, 5 or 6 years down the road, everybody was addicted to it. And then I remember 9/11, not many of us had a BlackBerry. But BlackBerrys had an ability to get out on the Internet a little bit better than cell phones, so BlackBerrys became an important thing. And I know Mr. Gordon and many of us here have seen all this grow, but now this phenomenal piece of equipment can find maps anywhere in the world. You can talk to somebody on the phone. You can take pictures and instantly send it to somebody. You can download music--although I have no idea how--and Internet people and look up things, Google online and Bing. And can you only imagine what this will be 5 years from now. It is unbelievable. I entered Michigan State University, and the calculator was a slide rule. We actually voted my freshman year not to allow calculators because the Texas Instruments, I think it was called an SR-10--can I get an amen over there? I know you must have had one. It was $179. We voted in my chemistry class at Michigan State University not to allow calculators because most middle class kids could not afford it. And yet 4 or 5 years later you could get much better calculators that fit in your pocket for $10. Technology has evolved at such a rapid pace, and yet along with it so have the bad guys. It used to be that maybe some interested math genius with a twisted sense of humor in Indonesia would hack into the Department of Defense computers just to see if he could, not really caring how many F-22s were in production, but just wanted to know. But then eventually the bad guys became more organized, more sophisticated, botnets, computer systems that talked to each other and shared information. A way of hacking into the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, all kinds of government agencies with all kinds of sensitive information. But there is no need to stop there. Wall Street, financial information, other things that you could get out of universities, all of it is vulnerable. And so this bill today is relevant because it shows that Congress is moving along with the technology to rise to the challenge. We need to have cybersecurity experts. So many of the cybersecurity experts that we have now come up through a law enforcement background and then they learn their computer training. What this bill does is to reach out to that young 17-, 18-, 19-year- old, and identify them as being interested in this, and merge in all their talents and say come on in the classroom because we need you as a line of defense. Technology against technology has to have that wall in-between them, and that wall is a brilliant, well-trained human being. That is what this bill seeks to do. In my own district, I have to brag a little bit, that Armstrong Atlantic University has a Cyber Security Research Institute. And it is working to bridge the gap so that the young people can have a viable career in cybersecurity. The program is to produce a more educated cybersecurity investigator with expertise in areas not only in technology but in law enforcement and law itself, and policy itself, and work with cyber forensics in order to produce the kind of professionals that we need to overcome the threat that we face as a Nation. We cannot be passive about this topic. We have to be proactive. This bill shows one of the great bipartisan efforts of Congress, for us to come together and address something that is truly a national security threat. So I am proud to support it. If you want any more information, you can get it on my BlackBerry. I will be glad to download it for you.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask House Members within my voice maybe for some help. About three or 4 years ago we found a man in Savannah, Georgia, who's in his late forties, maybe early fifties, who does not have identity. We have no idea who he is or where he came from. But he is an intelligent, apparently college-educated, middle management type guy, maybe from Indiana. Mr. Burton actually helped us on him a little bit because he has memories of Indiana and Denver, Colorado. We've talked to the FBI. They've done a background check. We've talked to Social Security. They've done a background check. We've gone to many Federal agencies and asked them for their assistance trying to identify this gentleman. He has no Social Security number so he can't get a job. And he is totally in abeyance, basically forced to be homeless if not for the charity of some people who've taken an interest in his case. So if anybody knows of a way to identify somebody, I would respectfully ask you to please let me know what it is, and I will be glad to follow whatever lead you can give me. And I appreciate that and thank you very much.