Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. After a 3-year spending spree in which the President drove up the national debt by 56 percent, the President has the nerve to tell the American people that they have to eat their peas. This from a President who has had the Federal Government on a supersize me diet since the day he was sworn in. Marie Antoinette would be proud of such arrogance. One must ask, where has the President been? He owns this economy. It's his policies that have left 15 million Americans without work. It's his policies that have stifled business growth and investment. It's his policies that have given us more deficit spending than any other administration in history. The President talks about entitlement reform but offers no plan, no legislation. The President talks about his budget fairness, and yet this very budget was rejected by the Harry Reid Senate Democrats by a vote of 97-0. The President denounces the Bush tax cuts yet personally extended them a few months ago. In 2006, the President voted against increasing the debt ceiling citing a lack of leadership, now he offers none. But today, the House Republicans will lead with a plan. That plan is cut, cap, and balance. And on the back, we have the President's plan. This is it: speeches. That's what we get after 3 years and the largest deficit in history from the President of the United States, speeches and admonishments.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, you've got to go fast because I'm willing to answer your question but I can't----

Mr. KINGSTON. The President has backed us up against the wall. If we don't do something serious and, yes----

Mr. KINGSTON. I agree with you. By law we need to have a balanced budget amendment so that Congress' hands will be tied from increasing the deficit.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. During his 8 years as President, President Bush increased the national debt $3 trillion. We spent too much money. But not to be outdone, in a 3-year period of time, President Obama has increased the national debt $5 trillion--a 56 percent increase. Then he turns around and lectures middle class American families, struggling families, to eat their peas. He offers no plan, no answers--nothing but a phoney budget that even failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 97-0. Harry Reid voted against his budget. The President owns this economy, not Haliburton, not Cheney, not George Bush. It's the President. He owns the skyrocketing debt. He owns the 15 million unemployed. He owns the failed stimulus plan. President Obama owns the extended Bush tax cuts because it was he who extended them 2 years. Now, in our time of great fiscal crisis, when America needs leadership, he is absent. The Republicans in the House are offering a plan, and I understand the Democrats don't like it. That's good, because sometimes the two parties have to battle it out, and you get a better product from it, but you can't do it when the Democrats aren't offering a plan. We will pass this plan today, and I hope Harry Reid and the Democrats will pass a plan and that we can get together. I hope the President decides to offer a plan. Maybe we can look at his, and maybe out of the three possibilities, we can do what's best for the American people, but we can't do it unless the President decides to engage and take on the role of leader.

Mr. KINGSTON. This is the plan: cut, cap, and balance. And this is the President's plan: speeches. That's all we're getting, no legislation whatsoever. I'll be glad to yield to my friend from Maryland.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. After a 3-year spending spree in which the President drove up the national debt 56 percent, he has the nerve to tell the American people to eat their peas. After he has been on this supersize-me diet, he turns around and tells struggling middle class families how to behave. One must ask, where has the President been? He owns this economy. He has been in office nearly 3 years; it is his. It's his policies that have left 15 million Americans out of work; it's his policies that have stifled growth and business investment; it's his policies that have created and are continuing these so-called ``tax breaks'' for Big Oil. It's his very signature that has extended the Bush tax cuts. It's his policies that have given us the highest deficit spending in the history of the United States of America. He owns this, not President Bush, not Vice President Cheney, not the Republican Party, not Halliburton, not all the other straw men that the President likes to set up to distract the American people. It was President Obama who cut Medicare $562 billion. It was President Obama who set up IPAB, which is a health care rationing system which our moms and dads and grandparents will have to be suffering under. It was this President who took unemployment from 7 percent up to nearly 10 percent. And now we're having the debate of the decade, and where is the President? We get from him, not a plan, but speeches, finger-pointing, rhetoric, vague promises, but no plan. If there is a plan, could you lay it on the table? And I'll ask my Democrat friends, do you have a plan? We keep hearing the President has a plan. Could you put it on the table? I might want to vote for it. I might be interested in reading the bill. If there is a plan, could you please put it on the table? Just as I thought, there is no plan.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to ask my friend from New Jersey to engage in a colloquy. The purpose of it is to talk about the nuclear prototype. As you know, and as the ranking member knows and the full committee ranking member, Mr. Dicks, knows, the Ohio class nuclear submarine is a critical component of our country's national security and is one-third of our nuclear deterrence, along with bombers and nuclear missiles. These critical systems are aging and are close to the end of their lifecycle. As part of the Ohio replacement, or SSBN(X) program, we are looking at expanding the nuclear core so that the future nuclear ballistic submarines can have a core life expectancy of 40 years, over 20 years.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. And I want to point out that the Ohio replacement nuclear reactor development program was identified specifically by line item within the Naval Reactor Section and allocated a full $121.3 million specifically for the SSBN(X) reactor program. This was done to ensure that the program be fully funded to the requirement amount without delay for FY 2012. I want to just get assurance of the support of the committee for this program, and I yield to the gentleman regarding the committee's position on it.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for that. Just to be abundantly sure, in order to ensure that there's no confusion within the Department of Energy and Naval Reactors, is it true that the prototype development for this new and complicated reactor system is fully funded to the required request?

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. Then I am hearing that the subcommittee has fulfilled the body's intent to ensure all funding lines related to the SSBN(X) Ohio replacement nuclear program are allocated to the required amount. I thank the gentleman for his support and for Mr. Culberson's support and Mr. Dicks' support.

Mr. KINGSTON. And Mr. Visclosky's support as well. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for a number of reasons, although I think he's made some good points, and certainly we want accountability to apply to this program as much as we want it to apply to anything. However, this is the same funding level as last year. The request was $425 million, and our commanders in the theater are telling us that that is even not high enough. So what we're doing with this amendment is actually cutting a level funding item from last year, cutting it in half. Now, what does the CERP money do, the Commander's Emergency Response Program money? Let's say an IED explodes, or maybe there is a bomb that blows up a storefront in the middle of the street. A commander can go in there and hire local labor to clear out the entrance to that small business or whatever it is and get it done quickly without having to put U.S. Army personnel in danger to do it and can do it quickly and effectively and therefore leave our soldiers in the field, leave our soldiers where they can be most effective with their time and their training, and it does promote some goodwill on the streets with the people. It has been said, well, all you're doing is renting a friend, and we're not going to be the first army that's fighting a war that rents friends, if you will. It really doesn't just rent a friend. It does create some long-term goodwill and does have an economic benefit of it. But the idea is to give the commander on the street some flexibility so that they can get the jobs done as the jobs arise and get them done quickly and turn them around. CERP money actually has been an effective tool, and it's enormously popular with our commanders who are on the ground. I believe one of the problems we have in Afghanistan, one of the problems we've always had, is that too many decisions are being made down the street at the Pentagon and not in Baghdad, not in Kabul, not in Kandahar, where the commanders are closest to the war front. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. I support the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to understand one thing in terms of what it does to the military's options of purchasing domestic or even North American fuel. And the reason why I say that is, as I understand, the Department of Defense has three strategies in terms of energy, or using less energy. Number one is to increase the fight, decrease the fuel. Number three is increase the capacity. And then number two--and I am going in this order for a reason--is to increase the fuel options, the choices, to diversify the fuel sources. And it appears to me that 526 has inadvertently eliminated some of the options. I would like to yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Flores) to explain that a little bit further, particularly with respect to domestic energy sources.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned about, with 84 million barrels of fuel produced every day, and America only having control of about 3 percent of that, yet consuming 25 percent, wherever we can use a friendly source of fuel is something that we need to keep open as an option. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it requires a new determination.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlewoman yield?