Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I had an interesting experience the other day. A friend of mine from Savannah, where I am from, asked me, he has a son up here, he said, ``Would you mind taking an engagement ring up to them?'' They did not want to mail a diamond ring at the Post Office. I could not imagine why. They did not want to trust this family heirloom, and they wanted me to take it up there, so I said I would be glad to take it up tomorrow. So I picked up the ring, and I started, and, you know, in the airplane, I started thinking, you know, I have got a $5,000 or $10,000 diamond ring here in my briefcase. I pulled the briefcase up closer to my chest, put a bear hug around it. I started getting a little nervous. I went through the Charlotte airport on the way. I did not go to the bathroom. I did not want to part with my briefcase and the diamond ring. I got real nervous about it. I came up here, and I think within 30 minutes of being here, I voted, as you said, on $2 billion or $3 billion of appropriations. I thought how silly I am, getting worked up and paranoid, about this diamond ring, and yet with that same voting card, I have got one, too, readily vote for billions and billions of appropriations, and as the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] was saying about that $25 million from Egypt or your amendment on $25 million, what we have been doing is we cut it, but we really just non- earmark it. We free it up, and then the bill goes to the Senate. Your $25 million is sitting there, and some Senator says, ``Ah-hah, I have got a new water project in my district. I am going to get that $25 million,'' and if for some reason it goes through the Senate and that $25 million is setting there, then it comes back to the House, and then the conference committee, they see that $25 million, and you can bet every single dollar ends up being earmarked. So these hours and hours we have debating, cutting the budget, we are not really cutting the budget. We are just not earmarking it. Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, I think the fact is that we are all saying, we are talking about accountability, whether it is lockbox legislation, which the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] and the gentlewomen from Washington [Mrs. Smith] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] were talking about, which is going to force the Congress to spend less and make sure we worry about our children and grandchildren and to make sure we actually spend money on things that help people, not more bureaucrats, more bureaucracies. That is what it comes down to. I call on, if I can, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] to talk about leading by example, because, frankly, if we do not continue the same kind of verve and spirit this next 6 months and the next year and a half in this Congress that we have in the first 6 months, then the public will not be supporting us with the new reforms we are going for.

Mr. KINGSTON. Does that mean I get paid what Rush Limbaugh is getting paid? He is an honorary freshman.

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, one of the tax statistics we do hear over and over again is that in the 1950's a middle-class family paid as a percentage of their income tax on the Federal level 2 percent. In 1972, that was 16 percent. In 1995, on an average, that is 24 percent. So you can imagine the middle-class tax squeeze. The Secretary of the Treasury says often that we are not gaining. Of course, we are not. Any gains we make the Federal Government takes, and they are just taking it right off the plate.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. I just wanted one second. I never would have accused the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] of being concerned about Jane Fonda. And I was curious about that, because I see her pawing the ground each night in the House Chamber looking for somebody to debate. So, I just could not let that go by, and I yield back.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, a good friend of mine Dave Reed from Savannah, Georgia sent me an article which he entitled Democracy and Government 101. It was an article written by Cecil Hodges, also from Savannah, Georgia who is a friend of mine and pastor of Bible Baptist. He talks in the article about the size of government and basically what happens when government gets too big. I am going to read parts of this article, Mr. Speaker: When government is strong, especially when it is centralized, it poses a real threat to its citizens who are liable to many abuses. Every democracy faces the tendency of government demanding more and more taxes because some of its citizens are seeking ever-increasing benefits of the state. I thought this was a very telling article. It goes on to say that a great portion of the manpower in the country becomes employed in governmental services. This becomes a problem because when the government seeks to establish a strong bureaucracy, it has to support itself. And of course, we know in this congress that the way it supports itself is by requiring the citizens through confiscatory policies to pay more and more taxes. Then it says: All people living in a democratic society must be aware that the more government provides, the more they take from the producing citizens, and the more they control and exercise over the people. And in fact the article goes on, Dr. Hodges points out to us that eventually it enslaves its people. This is a problem that we are faced with in our government today. This is one of the things that I am so proud of, the current freshman class, the 73 new Republican freshmen who have come in here to cut down on the size of government because they cannot do that without cutting down on the bureaucracy. Just to give you an idea, most people always say, I hate to see the land all going away. The size of the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, I know you probably will be shocked to learn; the Federal Government owns, listen to this number, 726,686,000 acres of land in the United States of America. The Federal Government, not mentioning the state and local government, owns 32 percent of the land in America. Now, what does that mean? Of course it needs the taxes to support the services required on that land, people who have to take care of it. What does it also mean? It means 32 percent of the land cannot be owned by the private sector. Therefore, to pay for the upkeep of that land and all the other governmental services, we are only working with 68 percent. But actually it is less than 68 percent when you take out the state and the locally owned land. Two hundred seventy million acres is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This is the size, Mr. Speaker, of California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona. And about half of the 270 million acres is severely restricted for environmental reasons, and the public cannot even go on it. You may remember the story last year of a Boy Scout troop that was hiking in the wilderness area and one 12-year-old got lost on the trail. And the Boy Scout troop started looking for him and could not find him. Finally they called out all the correct authorities, and he was located by helicopter. They found the 12-year-old boy by helicopter. They spotted him and then they called, I believe it was the Park Service, Mr. Speaker. They said: We need permission to land because this is a motorized vehicle, and this is a pubic land that restricts motorized vehicles. And sure enough the jar-headed bureaucrats said no, you cannot do it. How would you like to be that 12-year-old. How would you like to be the parents of that 12-year-old? They told the kid to wait where he was, that they would try to locate him on foot. Eventually they figured out they could not find him on foot. They did give permission for the helicopter to land. But what an absurd notion that we have. But that is what happens when the government owns too many things, when the government gets too big for practical and common sense. Mr. Speaker, I bring that up just to further illustrate the story of what Dave Reed called, Dr. Hodges' article, Government and Democracy 101. Government gets too big, our own freedoms pay the price. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article to which I referred. Government for the People (By Cecil Hodges) When government is strong, especially when it is centralized, it poses a real threat to its citizens, who are liable to many abuses. Every democracy faces the tendency of government demanding more and more taxes because some of its citizens seek ever- increasing benefits from the State. For three hundred years a nation was governed by Judges. They brought chaos to this nation. The people demanded a king. They were warned to be prepared for dangers inherent in government under sinful men. Three hazards to a strong centralized authority were given. They were warned that a king would conscript their sons for military service. He would appoint leaders and engage workers to render civil service to him and his organization of bureaucrats. Thus a great portion of the manpower of the country would be employed in governmental service. This has been one of the problems of every society when government seeks to establish a strong, self-serving bureaucratic organization. They were also warned that in order to pay for an ever- increasing bureaucratic organization, they would pay more and more taxes. All people living in a democratic society must be aware that the more government provides, the more they take from producing citizens and the more control they exercise over the people. Whenever the State increases its control over the nation's economy, enlarging its staff of officials and workers, and exacts an ever-growing portion of the nation's wealth through taxation, it becomes a monster which no longer serves the people but enslaves them. The great privileges of a free people must be safeguarded by every citizen's commitment to and participation in government that maintains law and order, administers economic justice, prevents oppression of the weak, and resists the temptation to serve its own ends. All Americans should ask themselves, ``Is the government here for us or are we here for the government?'' Our government should be of the people and for the people.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine, State Representative Garland Penhalser recently asked me why I was a Republican, and what we were doing up here, and what this think was all about. Garland is a State representative who has been doing a tremendous job in Atlanta in the State capitol down there making changes. He just wanted to hear it from me what he already knew, I guess. What I replied is that generally what the Republican Party believes up here is believing in people versus believing in Georgia. We support private sector solutions to problems, not Government solutions to problems. We stand for less regulation. We stand for less taxes, less bureaucracy, less micromanagement out of Washington, and certainly, more personal freedom. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, there are so many great examples of micromanagement out of Washington and Government run amok, if you will. A book has been written recently entitled ``The Death of Common Sense,'' and many people have read the book. Recently, the mayor of Kingsland, GA, Keith Dixon, gave a copy of it to me. Just thumbing through there, there were a lot of great examples of crazy things that our Government does. One of the examples took place in Yorktown, NC, with the Amoco Oil Co. The EPA came in there, and because there was a pollutant in the air called benzene, and benzene is an extremely dangerous pollutant, EPA ordered Amoco to install a new type of filtering system to their smokestacks. It cost Amoco $31 million. As we know, Americans all over the country paid for that in higher gas prices at the pump. Let us not fool ourselves that Amoco paid more dividends to their stockholders because of that. They did what any business would do and they passed the cost on to consumers. The irony of it was that the smokestacks were not emitting benzene. The benzene was coming from the loading dock area. That problem could have been easily remedied by changing the loading procedure. The only problem, Mr. Speaker, was that the EPA did not have jurisdiction over the loading dock, so the benzene is still in the air, and yet Amoco oil had to pay $31 million for it. Mr. Speaker, there are other examples of that. I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is here and wants to join us. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. KINGSTON. It is ridiculous, because I think the bureaucracy in many, many cases, and even probably in most cases, wants to do the right thing. The problem is these very laws, and we are going from manuals now that have a 4,000, 5,000, 10,000 pages to do anything, and these laws that are well-intended [[Page H 6726]] and regulations have become stumbling blocks, and because of that, we do not have common sense anymore in our process.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me give another example of government just not using quite common sense. I have in my hand a letter from Lee Heyer. Lee Heyer is a student at Georgia Southern University. He is actually the student body president. He sent to me a letter he got from the U.S. Post Office declaring June 12 to June 17 National Dog Bite Prevention Week. It tells people how to prevent their dog from biting a letter carrier. Again, it is well-intended, but, he said, he called the office. First of all, this mail that was delivered at taxpayer expense went to his apartment complex where they do not allow dogs, so everybody in the apartment complex got notified how to tie their dog up, which they are not allowed to have. The second part, he called the actual office in his area and found out there were zero dog bites in that particular area in the previous year. Again, Mr. Speaker, the private sector would not do that. They would think it through twice. I see the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] has joined us. I do not control the time.

Mr. KINGSTON. I was meeting this last weekend with the Georgia Hospitality and Travel Association. One of the battles they just fought with regulatory reform is that on the back of your hotel door, they have escape plans. I was in the insurance business and I am one of these nerds, I guess, who always reads those things. But 99 percent of the people who stay in hotels, particularly at Days Inn on a ground level, don't read how to escape from the room. They can kind of figure it out on their own. But new regulation, you have to print that bilingual. In south Georgia, where you don't get that many people speaking Spanish, they wanted to put it in Spanish language, as well as English language. You cannot even tell if the door is wooden or painted already because you have all these different instructions on what to do in a hotel room. The Hospitality Association was able to kind of break that, postpone the regulation, I would say, just break the thinking pattern there. In Los Angeles County, they have to put the voting ballot in 7 different languages. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] has a bill entitled ``English First'' which addresses this. I believe he is on the floor.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I am on the Committee on Appropriations. We have spent a tremendous amount of time reducing spending. Along the way I saw a statistic that we spend $242 million, I think, on one program for bilingual education. Does the gentleman know how much we spend totally?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This bill is a modest cut in the fiscal year 1995 budget. It reduces the budget by about 1 percent, or $9.3 billion. It is not big money. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of important programs that have been reduced as a result of this. Yet, these are the tough decisions that we have to make, because the American people have asked us to get our House in order. The President, of course, vetoed the first bill. He vetoed it because he was not satisfied with the cuts. He felt the cuts were too deep in education and training programs for the elderly, and in environmental programs and the salvage timber provisions. What we have done in this bill is we went back and addressed his concerns. We did not cut these programs as much as we originally did in the first rescission bill. Yet even doing so, there still seems to be a void in the debate from the White House. We do not have a clear indication that they are going to support this bill, nor do we have a clear indication that they are going to veto the bill. It is somewhat disappointing because my question would be to those who are in opposition to this bill, if not these cuts, which cuts? And if not now, when? That is not a profound statement, but it is something that we have to come around on. It is already late June. We have been debating this bill now for almost 6 months, and we still have yet to see a proposal, a concrete proposal from the White House about addressing these things. I stand in support of it. Yet I do hope, now that things are kind of loosening up on Pennsylvania Avenue, the President has submitted a balanced budget, hopefully he will come in now and enter this rescission debate at least by supporting this. The disaster money. The disaster money is necessary. We have flooding all over the country, particularly in Georgia, but Oklahoma City gets anti-terrorism measures paid for. We have already talked about the earthquake. These are important items. This bill would save more money if it was not for the disasters, but as we know, Mr. Speaker, these disasters happen. We do not have a special fund set aside for them. We probably should do that at some point, but right now we do not. We have to reduce the budget, the spending, in order to help pay for some of these disasters. Again, these are tough decisions, but they are decisions that have to be made. Let me conclude with this: It has been said that this rescission is too severe on the students, it is too severe on the elderly, it is too severe on the environment. But I would say that if you want to protect the environment, if you want to help out the students, if you want to protect the senior citizens, then you have to be sure that this country stays afloat. In order to do so, we cannot continuously have deficit spending and overspending and spending on unauthorized projects, and continue to face the children and the senior citizens and the middle class of America and say, ``We overspent, but we're going to get somebody else to pay for it.'' It is time for us to come around and say, ``You know, we're going to have to cut back a little bit in order to be there for you tomorrow.'' I believe that this rescission bill, Mr. Speaker, is a responsible step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and then vote for the bill.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one of the things we are telling farmers from the gentleman's district and my district and all over the country is despite the fact that we have gone from $26 billion in a government investment to $10 billion over a net year period of time, they are still going to have to change if we are going to have a program. We are moving these programs into no net cost programs. We are transforming them. If people want status quo, they lose out in 1995. That is not what the taxpayers want. They want a balanced budget, which means we are going to have to all do more. What we try to do, Mr. Speaker, is measure agriculture with the same yardstick that we measure social programs. When we are looking at social programs, if we are going to vote to cut them, then we need to be able to say we are going to do the same thing to agriculture. What the farmers are saying to us is ``We realize that, as long as you are fair and across the board, and do not balance the budget on the back of farmers.'' In fact, we could not, because even if we eliminate all farm spending, it constitutes three-fifths of 1 percent of the entire budget. It will not balance the budget if we eliminate it completely. What we are trying to get across to folks, Mr. Speaker, even still, we have to change the program in order to be in this game. I am glad to say that most of the farmers I have talked to, and I think Mr. Chambliss as well, are saying ``Do what you can to balance the budget. Make that the number one priority, but remember, you have to feed people and you have to have farmers to do that, so do not eliminate all your agricultural investments.''

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has summed it up.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to speak briefly about one of the amendments we had today in the full Committee on Appropriations that had to do with some of the farm programs that are coming up. This particular amendment had to do with the peanut program. The peanut program, like all of the agriculture programs, frankly are somewhat hard to describe and explain and they are very complicated. But one of the things that I think people need to keep in mind when we discuss agriculture is that, number one, the agriculture programs that we have were designed to give the American consumers an abundant supply of food and a steady supply, steady variety at reasonable prices. That has been achieved. American consumers spend 11 percent of their income on food compared to 20 percent in other countries and 33 percent in countries like the Soviet Union. So when we talk about farm subsidies and farm programs and so forth, we need to keep in mind that the people who are being subsidized are not necessarily the farmers. They are the American consumers. Eleven percent of our income, again, Mr. Speaker, goes to groceries. Compared to other countries, America is favorably ahead. Number two, farm programs have been reduced from a $26 billion level in 1987 to $10.6 billion today, in 1995. If all the Federal Government programs had been reduced as much as agriculture programs, we would not have the deficit. We would be paying down the debt. No other agencies, with the exception of Defense, can claim that kind of cut in the last 8-year period of time. Yet, Mr. Speaker, every time I pick up the newspapers, the big problem with the Federal budget seems to be agriculture. People do not keep that in mind. Finally, let me say this. The farm bill is coming up. Every year we have a farm bill, and all these programs are up for negotiation right now. There are many, many Members who are moving these programs to a more traditional capitalist system. We are changing the status quo. We are moving towards no net cost programs. I have noticed that the gentleman from central Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, has come down here. He is on the Committee on Agriculture. He is involved. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia. I know he has been involved in changing the peanut program to a no net cost program, and I know he is doing the same with many other programs.

Mr. KINGSTON. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that France subsidizes their farmers? Most European countries subsidize their farmers. Is it not true that American farmers cannot even sell rice in Japan because of the tariff agreement? So even as we look at GATT, and look at NAFTA, it is not a perfect world. We are not going out there on a free world basis, because of still existing trade barriers and still existing subsidies by foreign governments to their farmers who are competing with our American farmers. Is that not the case?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think the average American farmer feeds something like 187 people, and 126 people outside of America, so the production is unbelievable. I did not want to break down the gentleman's train of thought there.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to congratulate the Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A., Savannah, for their recent receipt of the Outstanding Community Investment Award. Wachovia Bank of Savannah and the Neighborhood Housing Services of Savannah Inc. [NHS], are one of six partnerships to receive this prestigious award from the Social Compact, an organization which fosters cooperation between financial institutions and American neighborhoods. They are being recognized for their joint efforts in pioneering a model strategy for transforming vacant, abandoned properties into quality single- family homes for first-time homeowners and, in the process, infusing vulnerable neighborhoods with the strength of new stakeholders. Wachovia Bank of Georgia and NHS of Savannah began their partnership in 1993. Their pioneer program, the NHS Home Auction, represented the first time in the Nation that a city government, in partnership with a neighborhood-based organization and local financial institutions, conducted an affordable housing auction of dilapidated, city-owned properties for sale to first-time home buyers. The 1993 auction resulted in the rehabilitation and sale of 31 homes to lower income buyers, representing an investment of $1.5 million in the community. The 1994 auction sold 52 homes valued at $3.8 million. This achievement represents innovation in urban renewal for both the city of Savannah and the Nation as a whole. Many American cities suffer both socially and economically from problems caused by aging inner-city housing. For years, city leaders and urban planners have searched for ways to turn these houses into assets rather than liabilities. Wachovia Bank and NHS of Savannah have done just that by transforming formerly vacant and dilapidated properties into quality homes which are securing--rather than threatening--the surrounding homes. The new stakeholders and increased investment is infusing fragile Savannah neighborhoods with a new lease on life. For the first time, these neighborhoods are being viewed as neighborhoods of choice, and they are growing as economically diverse and viable areas. These victories would not have been possible without this partnership approach which maximized the strengths of each partner. By joining forces, the city, NHS, and Wachovia were able to stretch limited public sector resources while maximizing opportunities for private sector involvement. A key challenge to any urban renewal program is financing the very costly process of either replacing or renovating aged housing. The combined rehabilitation and purchase costs significantly exceed neighborhood market values, conventional loan terms, and the mortgage carrying capacity of the lower income borrowers. The partners in this program used creative financing approaches to help assure long-term affordability while providing financial incentives for the new home buyers to remain in the community. Wachovia provided essential leadership to NHS for establishing the organizational capacity to undertake such a complex and resource- intensive venture. By pioneering mortgage programs for lower income buyers, providing revolving lines of credit essential for property acquisition, and financing the rehabilitation of the properties following purchase, the bank played a key role in this housing program. The city of Savannah and Wachovia should be congratulated for their partnership which not only helps the city itself but can also serve as a national model for urban renewal cooperation between cities and private business. The Outstanding Community Service Award recognizes their many achievements. I would once again like to congratulate the individuals involved in this program. It is an honor and a privilege to represent them.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield further, one thing that is interesting, I usually speak to two or three schools each month. I talk a lot to the high school juniors and seniors, and I always remind them, when they graduate and get in the work world, their percentage of income that goes to taxes is going to be far higher than their teachers, parents, grandparents, or any other generation of Americans that has ever entered the workplace. We talked about postponing pain. Tell that to an 18- or 19-year-old who is about to get his or her first job. They will tell you, ``I cannot believe how much of my paycheck Uncle Sam gets,'' and, as you know, the third largest expenditure of the national budget now is interest on the debt. Think how much greater it will be if we wait 10 years.

Mr. KINGSTON. Then at what level will the national debt be? Because that would be 9 more years of deficit spending on top of a $4.8 trillion debt. Did he project what the debt would be?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. It is fitting we do that. I am a native of Texas, and as you know, Texas has a very rich history in that Texas was one of the States that was actually a country at one time, and one of the great chapters of Texas history was the Battle of the Alamo and the great cry for the men who were being surrounded by Santa Ana's troops at the Alamo was for Americans to come rescue them, which, when Sam Houston's folks did come, many, many American soldiers had volunteered for that cause of Texas freedom and sovereignty. There, again, the good old American flag pulls through. Mr. Speaker, it always has represented the hope, the glory, the promise and the freedom.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. KINGSTON. It is interesting, I went to the Savannah Scottish Rite Flag Day ceremony this week, in Savannah, and we talked about the Bennington flag and the Grand Union flag that preceded our first national flag on June 14, 1777. That flag has meant so much to different people, but our favorite flag story is the one about Francis Scott Key. One of the things we always know is he was on a British ship, but we do not know what he was doing there. He was not a captive. His friend was a captive. He went to the British ship voluntarily on behalf of his friend and petitioned the officer in charge to release his friend, who was a doctor, for humanitarian purposes. He said, ``This gentleman is a doctor. He needs to come and tend to the sick and the wounded just as your British doctors do.'' And the British officer in charge was so taken back by his bravery in risking his own life in coming out there, and, you see, there were actually two of them totally. He said, ``I will tell you what, I will let all three of you guys go in the morning. We are attacking Fort McHenry through the night.'' They were, frankly, very confident they could win and capture Fort McHenry. What happened, of course, is Francis Scott Key and his friends were sitting on the ship, bow of the ship, standing there captives, watching through the night, trying to figure out what would happen, and then at the dawn's early light they were able to determine, of course, by the sign, the American flag still standing or still flying, that the British were, in fact, not successful in taking Fort McHenry. He started writing the poem, which became the national anthem, on his way back, because the British officer kept his word, let him go, starting writing the poem, finished it later. It took about 130 years for Congress to declare that the national anthem. You compare that to how quickly the Senate works these days, and we would still probably not have a national anthem. You know, the American flag does two things. It is a warm and fuzzy emotion when you see it. You know, you [[Page H5981]] think about home. You think about mom and dad, your parents, your family. You think about goodness. But then aside from that emotion, you think idealistically, like your brother. You think about the sacrifices. You think about the bravery and the freedom that men and women, generation after generation, have put forth to defend this great land of ours, and it is proper the U.S. Congress would take a moment today and say the Pledge of Allegiance one more time towards the end of the afternoon just so we can reaffirm that, and it is also proper that we recognize Flag Day on a bipartisan basis, because every now than and then we do get out of focus. We do start pounding one body or one party or one philosophy. We should always come back to that flag. That symbol of freedom is why we are here.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan may want to complete that thought. I do not want to cut him off. It sounds like he got where he was going with that.