Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it's a simple truth that Republicans in Congress spent too much money. It's a simple truth, though, that in 12 years of Republican deficits, the Democrats in 1 year spent more money, with a deficit of $1.4 trillion in 1 year. It's a simple truth you can't insure 30 million more people without costing more to the Federal Government. It's a simple truth that if the government rewrites all the health care laws, you can't keep the health insurance that you now have. It's a simple truth that with millions of new bureaucracies, or thousands of new bureaucracies and billions more dollars, bureaucrats will come in between you and your doctor. And it's a simple truth the government that brought you ``Cash For Clunkers'' is not going to deliver good health care policy. And it's a simple truth if the bill was so good we wouldn't need the Cornhusker kickback; we wouldn't need the Gatorade payoff; we wouldn't need the Louisiana purchase, and we would not have to promise to all Members of Congress all kinds of things that are in this bill and other bills to come if it was a good bill. It's a simple truth the American people want us to start all over, and that's what we should be doing.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, if the Democrats are so proud of the health care bill, why the subterfuge? Speaker Pelosi said, If we can't cross the fence, we will pole vault over it. We will tunnel under it, we will break through it. In other words, they are going to subvert the legislative process. If they are so proud of the health care bill, why the Cornhusker kickback? Why the Louisiana purchase? Why the Gator aid? Why the hospital for the folks in Connecticut? Why all the other special interest bills? And if they are so proud, why not post it on the Web page? But, in fact, here is what the Speaker said. These are Nancy Pelosi's words: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' In other words, the height of D.C. arrogance and Beltway we-know-best. I call on fair-minded Democrats to join me in denouncing this process and standing up for transparent, fair, and open government. Let's have a bill that comes to the floor in which amendments are allowed and one that has come through the committee process.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman. Thirdly, we now have an engaged Pakistan. One hundred forty-seven thousand troops have closed off the safe havens the Taliban has been running to in Pakistan itself in the meantime. Things are happening. And while I support the gentleman's concept of making sure the War Powers Act is followed, I think the timing is poor. So I will not support it at this time because of the progress on the ground, because of the troops that are on the ground. But again, I want to congratulate the gentleman in his strong conviction of this. I do think it is something that we in Congress need to look at. We need to look at it carefully. I hope that the committee will have some hearings on this. And I hope that we might have some regular order and have an opportunity for the minority party to maybe even offer an amendment or a motion to recommit or something like that that I think would be very beneficial for us to have this national debate.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, but I do appreciate Mr. Kucinich for bringing it up. And I think it is proper to debate this. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. And many years ago in committee we voted to support the Skaggs amendment to an appropriations rule that would have put the war powers in effect during something in the Clinton administration, but I don't remember what the skirmish was. So I think it is appropriate for us to debate this. However, I think the timing is not exactly optimal, particularly with troops in the field. I also want to point out that it does appear to me that if the Democrat leadership was serious about this, they would have allowed hearings in the committee, and they should have had a committee vote rather than just put it on the House floor. But I am glad that you brought it up, and I know your absolute sincerity in this. I also want to point out to you, as somebody who voted ``no'' on the litany I am about to give on spending, that if we are looking for money, perhaps in May of '08 we should not have passed a stimulus program of $168 billion; in July of 2008, a $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae; in August '08, $85 billion by the Federal Reserve for AIG, which is now up to $140 billion; and in November of '08, $700 billion for the TARP bailout; and in January of '09, $787 billion for a stimulus program which was designed to keep us from getting to 8 percent unemployment, and we are now pushing 10 percent unemployment. That was followed by a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. And then we had in December of '09, a $165 billion jobs program. So we're spending a lot of money. And there's a lot of it out there. But I would suggest if we're looking for money, what we need to do is get out of the bailout business, from General Motors to the banks. And I think we could find a lot of money on a bipartisan basis. And I know the gentleman is one of the strongest critics of corporate welfare, and yet that is what we have spent 2 years doing, Democrats and Republicans alike. I won't say it started with President Obama. I do want to say this about the troops in the field. And I do respect your support of troops. I just got back from Afghanistan. I was there Saturday, and I was in Pakistan Sunday, meeting with General McChrystal, meeting with our leadership on the ground over there. We do have a new strategy. It is shape, clear, hold, build, and transfer. And in our first muscle movement under this, as you know we went to Marja, we went to the Helmand Province, and we had a military victory. But rather than leave it there, we have now worked on a successful civilian transfer to make sure that the Afghanis are ready to take on this new conquered territory. Karzai was briefed from the beginning on the battle for Marja. One- third of the troops were Afghanis. They fought shoulder to shoulder with the coalition forces. The governor of the Helmand province was briefed. There is a new police force that is coming in there to crack down on the corruption in the Afghan police force, because that is one of the problems.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say to the majority, I am glad you have offset this money. I think that is a significant step for both parties, to have a spending bill offset. So I want to get that out of the way. Having said that, I have got to say that I am very leery of another government spending program to address jobs. We are here because last year we spent nearly--well, we did spend $800 billion on a stimulus program that was supposed to keep us from going to 8 percent unemployment. Now we are at 10 percent unemployment. The stimulus program before just added 31 brand new Federal programs and increased spending. I am ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, and spending in the USDA has gone up 26 percent. At some point we are going to figure out the Federal Government doesn't have the solution for everything. This is not our only stimulus proposal or jobs proposal. In May of 2008, we had a $168 billion stimulus program that did not work. In March of 2008, the Federal Reserve said, well, we are going to shore up Wall Street with Bear Stearns, $29 billion. In July of 2008, the Democrat Congress and President Bush came in with a $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae in order to shore up real estate. And not to be outdone, the Federal Reserve weighed back in a month later with the AIG bailout, $85 billion, now up to $140 billion, that was supposed to avert financial collapse, and yet it did not. And then in October of 2008, we had a $700 billion TARP bill. Then in January 2009, under President Obama, we had a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that was supposed to shore up the economy. Of course, that brings me back to the other stimulus program. After a while, we're going to figure out everything we do is like Cash for Clunkers. It just doesn't work. If we want to help small businesses, we've got to quit spending money, number one.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. Number two, we need to let community banks be released from some of the overbearing and unnecessary regulations in which they have to comply, because that causes them not to be able to lend money and thus small businesses are tied up in a credit crunch. Number three, we've got to let small businesses compete. We set rules. Big Business and Big Government set rules so that small businesses can't compete. There are things we can do. There are things we can do together on a bipartisan basis. We need to vote this bill down so that we can get to them.

Mr. KINGSTON

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. 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. You would think they would probably have something to say at the White House. They would be a little more moderate and have some good productive contribution to make.

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. 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

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. Well, let me ask you this now. Who gets to look at it in 24 hours and when? Who is this group of people and when?

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. 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. So special interest groups have clearly been on the inside of this and their fingerprints are all over the health care bill.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you know, the old expression, I'm from the government, I'm here to help. I haven't found a school board or a school board member back home or a teacher in the classroom who can't spend the money more efficiently and more effectively because, you know, there's an old Loretta Lynn song about raising children. One needs a spanking, one needs a hugging, and one's on his way. And you know, that's the situation with education. It's the teacher in the classroom who knows how to teach Johnny, not some bureaucrat on the sixth floor three offices down at the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. Well, you know, what about Medicare? Now, Medicare's a very important health care program for our seniors--my mom's on it and I think your parents are--and yet it's going broke. $36 trillion in unfunded assets? What are we doing to senior citizens? The program is going broke, and yet we have our head in the sand.

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes. But let's talk about the Department of Education. Boy, I tell you what. School systems have really done well, haven't they, since the Department of Education. I mean, there's no way you could argue that.

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, there's a joke about the guy asks his friend, he says, Why don't you ever read the Bible? And he says, Well, you know what? I just don't understand all that stuff that's in there. And the guy replies and says, Well, I don't think it's the part that you don't understand that is bothering you. And the President says over and over again, I guess this is maybe his background in, you know, Ivy League schools or, you know, the circles that run around in the Northeast that, well, the American people, bless their heart, they just don't understand this health care bill. You know, what has he given, 50 speeches? I don't know. I know I had 19 town hall meetings. The people understand the health care bill. If there's one certainty in the whole debate it is that the American people understand the Obama-Pelosi health care bill.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you know what I found though? The people were reading the bill. And I've got to say this to the people who supported the bill, they found some good stuff in there and said to me, you ought to support that. And there were some things in there that I think are worthy of supporting. But I still think it's very difficult to make a bad bill a better bill. I think it would be better to start all over, pick and choose some ideas from Republicans. You don't have to start at Ground Zero as if you've never heard of health care reform ideas, but you should start all over in this legislation. What if this was the Pelosi-Boehner-Reid-McConnell bill? What a different thing. And I think that's what we want to do. We want to work with the Democrats. We were shut out of the stimulus bill. We were shut out of the omnibus bill. We've been shut out of health care. Maybe tomorrow isn't just theater. Maybe it's the turning point. I hope that it is. You know, I'd like to see something get done. But a lot of times, you know, these things are just positioning.

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, the town meetings that you and I had, the town meetings where you did not have to have an invitation, the town meetings where you invited Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party members, independents, out-of-towners, nonregistered voters, the kind of town meeting where you had open mikes and anybody could stand up and say anything they wanted----

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you know, it's interesting the way the Pelosi- Reid-Obama triumvirate always is coming back to government and Washington solutions because, as I see it, looking at the government performance, Republican or Democrat, it hasn't been effective. Just think about Washington, D.C., two weeks ago, shut down because of snow. Now, you know it might be worth 48 hours, but this was a town where, essentially, everybody in the government took off for a week. Now, it's interesting. My son works in Washington, D.C., in the private sector. Somehow, his roads were open. And I saw that over and over again, the private sector people could get to work 2 weeks ago in the snow. Not every day, not every hour, because it was a bad storm. But for government employees----

Mr. KINGSTON. There is no end to this. Today at the Business Roundtable the President said something like, I am a staunch capitalist, I believe in the capitalist system. And yet let's look at the last record. There is not a government regulation that this administration hasn't embraced and said, look, we need the government to do this.

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.