Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. The leadership of the committee has said that the grain standard works fairly well. But I want to point out that this took 7 years, so maybe the reason the grain standard is working so well is that it took a long time and lots of input to pass. I would hope that we could take the lessons of the grain standard and not have to wait anywhere near 7 years, but say, hey, that will has already been invented. Let's apply what we found on the grain standard to this. I am hoping that the chairman's amendment addresses some of those things, but I am also confident that the Senate is going to do it as well. Let me close by saying I believe under these circumstances that the committee has done a good job. I think there has been some solid input from the minority, and the majority has been listening. I do plan to support the bill, but I do think we have a lot more that we could do to improve it.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the ranking member and I thank the chairman of the committee, and my colleagues, Mr. Barrow and Ms. Woolsey, for their work on this. While I support many of the points of the ranking member, I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction and something that we are just going to have to push OSHA on. The Imperial Sugar explosion, of course, was a very tragic accident, of which Mr. Barrow and I were involved in it. I actually was there the night that it happened and he and I went there for several days afterwards to look at the damage. I met with many of the families. It's a very sad thing. Sometimes in a situation like that it's hard to be objective in terms of what to support and what not to support, or what to change, especially since we don't know the exact cause of the accident; if any of the existing standards, for example, were violated, if a new standard would have prevented it, or if this is going to boil down to housekeeping, in which there would already be a violation and something a new standard or an old standard cannot address because the employer did not do what the employer is supposed to do, which would be to keep the workplace clean. I share the goal of comprehensive worker safety, but sometimes the history of legislating it shows that if we move too quickly, then you might not get the goal that you want to do. Throughout its history, OSHA standards set in process has been governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. This generally requires a Federal agency to develop and draft proposed regulations, issue proposed rules and regulations in a transparent process that allows for comment and input from the stakeholders and incorporate any appropriate stakeholders' comments in the publication of the final rule. The bill was improved greatly with the Woolsey substitute. That substitute moved more of the capital and equipment-intensive mandates to the final rule rather than the interim rule, including engineering, administration, workplace practices. It also moved the reference to the NFPA, the National Fire Protection Act, from the interim to the final rule, and making the language more flexible. Those were very good improvements. Lastly, it required that the 18-month final rule be made under the normal rule making process. Now I understand that the chairman may offer further improvements during the floor debate tonight that may include making engineering controls required under the interim standard effective 6 months after the issuance of the interim rather than 30 days under the base bill in clarifying that the standard must be promulgated in accordance with normal OSHA rulemaking procedure including that that provides for the review of small businesses. I think that that might a good step because the more input you get from the business community, the labor community, and the users, I think the better. That's why I offered an amendment that would have said that we should consider if there will be any job loss because of these rules or because of the interim rules. I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee did not allow my amendment to be considered on the floor because I think it would have been very helpful and something that certainly would have given bipartisan support to it. One thing I also want to point out, OSHA can actually make rules themselves. The Assistant Secretary, Mr. Foulke, has stated, ``We have not ruled out the possibility of doing rulemaking, and that is an option for us still. But we are just trying to collect the data through the National Emphasis Program where we look at sites and determine do our standards actually cover what we need to cover? Or are there some holes in the coverage that we may need to address, and would a comprehensive standard address that.'' So we need to remember that if this bill gets bogged down somewhere along the line, that OSHA itself probably will come out with some sort of rule modification which could be helpful. We have talked about the grain standard being a good standard.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. [From the Savannah Morning News, April 29, 2008.] (By Nathan Dominitz] Former major league all-star pitcher Lou Brissie can tell stories about his ballpark encounters with the likes of Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Connie Mack and Satchel Paige. Monday night and [Tuesday], people are sharing stories about Brissie, Savannah's own living legend for his starring role on the 1947 South Atlantic League championship team. ``We didn't measure speed in those days, but I know he must have thrown close to 100 miles an hour,'' said longtime friend Bill Hockenbury, an all-star third baseman on the 1947 Savannah Indians, a Class A affiliate of the then- Philadelphia Athletics. ``I'm serious. He just reared back and threw that ball.'' Brissie, now 83, might have enough power in his left arm to throw out the first pitch [Tuesday] night at Grayson Stadium, where the Savannah Sand Gnats will retire his No. 3 jersey before the 7 p.m. game against the Hickory Crawdads. The first 1,000 fans receive a replica Brissie jersey T-shirt courtesy of the Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society. There was a ``Lou Brissie Day'' scheduled in 2007, but it was rained out, rescheduled and rained out again late last season in Savannah. Brissie didn't think a higher power was sending a message. ``No, he speaks plainer than that,'' said Brissie, a North Augusta, S.C., resident for the last 30-plus years with his wife, Diana. The Sand Gnats also organized a banquet in his honor Monday night at the Riverfront Marriott. Again it rained, but thankfully this event was indoors. Attendees received the T- shirt as well as a figurine of Brissie pitching. Brissie's own story is worthy of a movie, and indeed it was re-enacted decades ago for a television program starring former pro athlete Chuck Connors, famous as ``The Rifleman.'' Brissie also is the subject of an ongoing book project. True Grit The dramatic elements are there. A teenage pitching prospect enlists in the U.S. Army during World War II. On a battlefield in Northern Italy in 1944, the corporal nearly has his left leg blown off when an artillery shell lands at his feet. ``I broke an ankle and my feet. My leg was shattered in 30 pieces between the knee and the ankle,'' said Brissie, who would receive two Purple Heart medals and a Bronze Star during his military service. Amputation was an option, but Brissie knew that would end hopes of a baseball career. He persuaded doctors to save the leg, and credits a military surgeon, Capt. Wilbur Brubaker, for doing the incredible. ``I was just a guy with a dream,'' said Brissie, who would spend parts of seven seasons in the majors with the Athletics and Indians, including an appearance in the 1949 All-Star Game. ``I think I was just blessed from Day One. There weren't guys who attain the major leagues who were as fortunate and blessed as I was.'' Brissie, through 23 surgeries and countless setbacks, would pitch again--eventually for the Philadelphia Athletics, who originally signed him in 1940 and resigned the 6-foot-4, 210- pound lefty in 1946. He was assigned to Savannah, posting a 23-5 record, 1.91 ERA and SAL record 278 batters in 254 innings. He wore a brace on his left leg, which was about 1\1/2\ inches shorter than the right. He also had the admiration of his teammates, who saw his daily routine of playing with a leg that under the bandages ``looked like a piece of tissue paper,'' Hockenbury said. ``He was our hero,'' recalled Hockenbury, a World War II veteran and one of half a dozen Indians to eventually make it to the big leagues. ``He was great. He was our leader. He was our superstar.'' Home-field advantage Savannah responded, packing Grayson Stadium when Brissie pitched and often when he didn't, Hockenbury said. ``We had great community support,'' Brissie said. ``The fans were just tremendous. We had community business support. I think it was the ideal time after World War II and before television.'' The talented team, playing in a league stocked with future major leaguers, had the unity necessary for success over the long summer months. ``In all of that time, I never heard two guys have a bad word or get upset,'' Brissie said. ``Everybody was for everybody else. It's really one of my greatest memories.'' The retiree makes weekly visits to a Veterans Administration hospital and speaks with injured servicemen. He shares motivational stories and asks them not to give up their dreams. ``You've got to live each day and look for something better, and it will show up,'' he said.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. That's correct. So, here we are, the first day back basically voting on anything of substance, we've already spent $20 billion over a budget that's only 3 weeks old. Now, you had mentioned discretionary spending, and I want to make sure folks understand. Discretionary spending means Congress has agreed that year by year that level of spending can fluctuate. Now, that's opposed to what we call mandatory spending. And I use the term ``mandatory'' loosely because nothing is mandatory if you're the legislative branch that set laws. But we call things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security mandatory spending, meaning, not just that we're going to spend a certain amount every year depending on a formula, but it also means, and I don't know if my friend from Tennessee or the other gentleman from Texas or Tennessee know this, but we don't have hearings on mandatory spending traditionally. I'm a member of the Appropriations Committee. We spend a huge amount of money on Social Security and Medicaid, but we've never had a hearing on it. Every year we wrestle on some of the mandatory spending and some of the discretionary spending, but the biggest portion of the budget we don't do hearings on. And I think that it's time that we start talking about some of the mandatory spending if we're ever going to be serious about balancing the budget.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask, before the gentlewoman takes that down, do those budgets balance, by the way; or when do they balance out, when do they balance? And do they have to be passed by the Senate and the House?

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think, though, that when you're talking about spending, you have to look at everything. And when you have such a large portion on mandatory spending, and I think of it in terms of automatic spending, and I understand that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are sacred cows, that if you touch them politically somebody's going to twist your words around and say that you're trying to do something nefarious, but the reality is if you're ever going to balance the budget, you have to look at everything. And there are areas I know that we can do a better job on. Now I'm on the AG Committee on Appropriations. Many people don't know this, and they always complain about how big the USDA is. Sixty-three percent of the agriculture budget is in welfare. Food stamps, the WIC programs, school nutrition programs, these are supplemental assistance programs to the poor. Now, I was here in 1996 when we reformed welfare, and it went from 14 million people who were on welfare down to 5 million people. That was a step in the right direction because you want to help those who truly need it, but you don't want to create a system where able-bodied people are able to game it and not work. But what we're doing in AG appropriations is year after year making it a little bit easier to qualify for food stamps. We lighten up on the work requirements. We extend it to this group or the other. The WIC program is a child nursing supplement program. And Dr. Burgess knows well, it's a supplemental program for nursing mothers, but you're eligible for age 6. Now, I'm a father of four. I know you're a mama, you weren't breast-feeding your children at age 6, I assume.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding, and there are a couple of points I want to make. One is just now a lesson that we have simply learned or seen, I guess, witnessed, if you will. The Democrats passed a budget the week before we adjourned for a 2-week work recess, so it would have been 3 weeks ago. So 3 weeks the Democrat budget is passed, and it had in it $30 billion for AIDS money for Africa. As we know, the President has been very passionate about getting AIDS support for the continent of Africa. Indeed, Africa has suffered a lot because of the AIDS problem. But the President called for a $30 billion expenditure. Now, the Democrats called for a $30 billion expenditure as well in the budget 3 weeks ago, but something may have happened in their districts over the last 2 weeks. I suspect person after person who's paying $3.25 a gallon and who's concerned about the war and concerned about health care ignored that and said to their Democrat Member, you have got to spend more than the President has promised for AIDS in Africa; and don't just spend $30 billion, spend $50 billion. So, when we get back to Washington, the first thing the Democrats do is ignore the President's request, ignore their own budget, and go $20 billion on one vote on one line item expenditure.

Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, Members of the House, it's a great honor today to introduce my friend, the Reverend Elliott Foss, to the chamber and to the folks who are our visitors today. Elliott has been a friend of mine for a number of years, almost going on two decades, in fact. Elliott was appointed the National Chaplain of the American Legion on August 30, 2007, by the National Commander, Marty Conatser. The appointment was made following the closing session of the 89th National Convention in Reno, Nevada. He is a retired U.S. Navy Command Master Chief and Hospital Corpsman from the Submarine Division, and served during the Vietnam War and through the Gulf wars. Elliott attended Candler Seminary School of Ministry at Emory University. He also served as pastor to churches in Maine, Virginia, Connecticut, Florida, and Georgia. He is a Georgia resident and is an ordained Southern Baptist Minister and Chaplain, even though he has been the minister in four different Methodist churches in my district. Elliott is a member of the American Legion Post 317 in coastal Georgia, where he serves as Post Commander. Reverend Foss also has served as the 8th District Vice Commander and as Post 9 Brunswick Commander. Chaplain Foss serves as the Department of Georgia Chaplain for now 7 years. He has held numerous leadership positions at the post, State and national levels during the past 11 years. He and his wife, Arlene, reside in Kingsland, Georgia. I first got to know him when he was the chaplain of the Seaman's House and worked with people and sailors from all over the world and members of our own merchant marine. He is a great guy, a great man of the Lord, and we are very proud to have him as chaplain of the day today.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say from the beginning I am supporting the Republican budget. And I do find it ironic that a Congress that just distributed a one-time $1,200 per household tax credit is now going to turn around and raise taxes by $3,155 per household. It doesn't make sense. And for that reason, I'm planning to vote ``no'' on the Democrat tax increase budget and support the Republican alternative. But also I wanted to speak specifically about the earmark portion. I'm a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I realize that if you are a member of one party, you might not always disagree with the members of the other party. For example, if you are a Democrat right now, you might not be in complete agreement with the Bush budget. Likewise, if you're a Republican, should a President from another party get elected, you might not agree with their budget all the time. Therefore, it is important for equal branches of government to have a say-so in the construction of a budget. Within that framework, it is often important that Congress have the ability to earmark. However, I want to say that, as a Republican, earmarking got out of control under our Republican watch. We know that for a fact. Any Republican who is denying that probably has his head in the sand. And I want to give Democrats credit. They have tried to reform earmarks. However, unfortunately, the reforms haven't been apparent, they haven't been given the credit, and they haven't been enough. We still have work to do. Therefore, I am supporting the Kingston-Wamp-Wolf approach, which is to call for a bipartisan, bicameral select committee to review earmarks, with a moratorium for the time period that the select committee is in existence. And I know that ours isn't, the moratorium is lifted when they come back, report back to Congress. In this bill there's a 1-year moratorium. But I think either way you can take a step back and look, what is the process and how can we improve it? Because as an appropriator, we are always focused on appropriations earmarks, and yet the infamous Bridge to Nowhere did not come from an appropriations bill. It came from a transportation bill. In December 2006, we passed a tax relief bill that had, I think, over 100 different types of earmarks on it. But because it was a tax bill, they weren't defined as earmarks. We see the same thing in trade bills. I believe that all earmarks should be put on the table and the process should be reviewed. And that should include the White House earmarks. That is why it is important for us, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to take a step back and see what we can do to improve this. We all agree earmarks should not increase a budget but work within the existing budget limits passed by Congress.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements of a friend of mine, Rosemary Mucklow. Rosemary is the long-standing executive director of the National Meat Association and has been somewhat of a legend in the meat and food business. Her dedication to the industry is evident by her business achievements, there are so many of them. Rosemary was born in Scotland and went to work at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the British Government before being hired as a secretary at the Pacific Coast Meat Association, which was later named the Western States Meat Association, and then renamed the National Meat Association. In 1996, Rosemary received the E. Floyd Forbes award from the Meat Association for her outstanding service. She was honored again in 2002 by the American Meat Science Association for her ``commonsense leadership.'' She served on the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection and was the vice president of the International HACCP Alliance. Throughout her career, she has highlighted the importance of information and education of the meat industry to improve standards, efficiency, and quality. Rosemary will be retiring very soon, but if I know Rosemary, retirement for her won't mean just quietly fading into the sunset. She is going to be active, probably still in the association, and in the industries. I had the opportunity to get to know Rosemary about 10 or 12 years ago when we, in the House Ag subcommittee of appropriations were passing the HACCP law. At that time we were moving from visual carcass- to-carcass inspection of meat and poultry to microbial testing, taking this to the modern technology. Rosemary knew so many people in the industry, and there was a lot of controversy, but she was able to get the people together to come up with the right compromises and the right push at the right time to get the thing from floundering. She also was very active at a time when there was some Salmonella and E. coli issues that had threatened to close down the industry and push through, I think, very aggressive mandatory recall authority for the Secretary of Agriculture. Rosemary brokered some ``peace in the valley,'' you might say. She's got the kind of enthusiasm that can only be called ``contagious.'' I met her through a man who is a sausage manufacturer in San Francisco named Al Piccetti, and the Piccetti family has also become friends of mine. And it seems like birds of a feather flock together. Rosemary's friends are good people. They have invited Libby and me to go visit them out in San Francisco, and we had a very nice time dealing with them. All the hospitality I would say that they have given us over the years and the friendship, those kind of relationships that in this business are rare to find. I will say this, I have no idea what Ms. Mucklow's politics are, if she's Democrat or Republican. In fact, the last time she was in Washington, she really prefers, for some reason, the west coast, but the last time she was here she said, Jack, I don't need to see you, I'm going to go see Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro because that's where the action is now. And she said that with a twinkle and a smile, and then she went up to go see Rosa. But she has that kind of good will that she can deal with both sides of the aisle and get the argument off politics into what is best for the American food consumer. What's best for the industry and the consumer has always been her goal. I will say I don't even know what kind of activities she does on a personal level, but I know this, that whatever she is doing right now, she's doing it with a smile and a lot of fun and involving a lot of people. She's the kind of lobbyist or industry advocate that keeps a good reputation for the industry that she represents because she doesn't cut corners, she doesn't do political things, she doesn't think in terms of backroom deals or power moves or anything like that, she wants to do what's fair and what's just for the American people, and has a broad picture far beyond her job or her industry or her association. We're going to miss her kind of leadership, but I do hope that in her retirement she does not become a stranger. With that, I want to say thank you, Rosemary Mucklow, for your many years of advocacy for the American food consumer and for the industry. Rosemary Mucklow, Executive Director, National Meat Association, Oakland, CA Rosemary Mucklow is Director Emeritus of National Meat Association, (formerly Western States Meat Association) an Oakland-based trade association representing packers, processors, wholesalers, sausage makers, and other related firms in the U.S. meat and poultry industry. Until 2007 she was the NMA Executive Director and held this position since 1982 when the Western States Meat Packers Association and the Pacific Coast Meat Association merged to form the stronger, broad-based organization it is today. Rosemary has been associated with the meat industry for over 40 years. As Executive Director, Rosemary's responsibility's included the administration of the affairs of the National Meat Association. She continues to oversee the activities of NMA as Director Emeritus, and as part of her daily activities she maintains working contacts with NMA's members so that she remains fully informed about the effects on their businesses of government and market activities. Almost daily, Rosemary advises members on the intricacies of the federal meat and poultry inspection laws, and other laws administered by the Department of Agriculture. Rosemary has a reputation for ``telling it like it is.'' She is considered a formidable adversary in defending the industry when it's right, and she'll be equally straightforward in making corrections when it is not. In 1996 Rosemary received the E. Floyd Forbes award presented by the National Meat Association in recognition of her outstanding services to the meat industry. In 2002, she was honored by the American Meat Science Association for her ``common sense leadership in the areas of food safety and public policy.'' She was appointed to the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection and elected Vice President of the International HACCP Alliance. She is an honorary member of the American Association of Food Hygiene Veterinarians. Aside from her responsibilities as Director Emeritus of NMA Rosemary is a member of various research and industry related organizations. She is a Trustee on several Taft-Hartley Funds administering medical and pension benefits for union workers. She has worked to raise funds in the area of cancer research as President of the Peralta Cancer Institute and has reached out to assist disadvantaged people in the community. She is the President of the Berkeley City Club, as well. Rosemary was born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland and had various jobs unrelated to the meat industry before coming to the United States in 1959. She earned her Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Accounting at Golden Gate University, graduating in 1970. She resides in a cottage with a panoramic view of the Golden Gate and surrounded by a woodsy rose garden in Berkeley, California with two feline companions.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can amend it or offer an amendment on earmark reform. As we heard the President last week speak about earmarks in the State of the Union, to my knowledge, no President has ever talked about something that's ordinarily a House and Senate procedure in his State of the Union comments. But in it he declared war, you may say, on earmarks. Now, we believe in the prerogative of the legislative branch to put things in the budget and take things out of the budget. Indeed, the White House earmarks all the time. But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we need to have a discussion on earmarks. We do need to stop the practice of air-dropping earmarks into conference committees, earmarks that haven't been debated, discussed, or had hearings held on them at the House or on the Senate level. I think that's the first step. But I think there is a whole lot of other things we should do. For example, there are earmarks routinely in the transportation bill. There are earmarks in trade bills, earmarks all over the place in any tax bill. We believe that earmarking should be reformed on all committee levels. We always talk about appropriations, but there are lots of committees that do it. If we allow for it, we will set up a joint bicameral, bipartisan select committee on earmarks that will come up with recommendations on how to do a better job with them. This would require, or we would urge, a moratorium on earmarks until the select committee comes back to Congress with recommendations. But there are so many things that we could do that would improve this process: for example, financial disclosure on earmarks, does the Member have anything at stake to personally gain; transparency so that when an earmark is added on a subcommittee or full committee or floor level, transparency so that the earmark is put in and Members have an opportunity to ask why is that in there, who put it in there, what does it do and why should the people of Idaho have their tax dollars go to something that happens in Florida. We want to be able to have that debate. I think that that is so important. And, again, there are tax loopholes that are basically industry- specific earmarks. Who puts them? At least with appropriations right now you know who puts them in, but on tax earmarks you do not. The White House does all kinds of earmarking, and we and certainly the press let them get away with it because for some reason they are the White House. But under the constitutional concept of equal branches of government, particularly when spending bills originate in the House, we have the right to earmark; but we should all be measured by the same yardstick. The other thing that is important is what is the impact of earmarks on the budget. When you take an earmark out of a bill, it does not reduce the bill. Is that something that we should look at? There are all types of things that a bipartisan, bicameral committee could look at that would improve this process. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule so that we can come back and have this opportunity to vote on this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, back in January, a number of Members of the House voted against a surge in Iraq which the President had promoted. Well, although that vote passed the House, it failed in the Senate, and we know the surge did take place and the surge has paid off. Civilian casualties in Iraq are down 20 percent; 75 percent in Baghdad. IED attacks are down by 50 percent, and we've nearly doubled the number of weapon caches that have been discovered this year from last year. Lots of good progress has been made. And I don't blame the folks who are against Iraq for pushing the bill back in January that they did. I believe that there's plenty of room for honest disagreement on this war. But at the same time, here we are now and we need to continue funding for that war. There is a $50 billion bridge fund. The President actually has asked Congress for $196 billion, but Congress has indicated $50 billion is all that we're willing to go at this point. But then there are some stipulations, some micromanagement of the war. I hope that we can have this bill on the floor of the House and have an honest debate on it and keep the spirit of agreeing to disagree agreeably.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from California and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his help in the committee and Members of Congress for their support of this. Sid Flowers, John Sidney Flowers, was a good friend of mine. He was a friend of many people, as he had served in office for so many years in the State of Georgia. His wife, Nan, is a friend; his daughters Kay and Darcy have been friends over the years. It is just one of the great families that does so much for a community and makes a community what it is. Sidney was actually the Solicitor General for Liberty County for over 32 years. This is the home of Fort Stewart, in Hinesville, Georgia, a military town where there is lots of turnover. You need people who kind of know the history of the community, and that was Sid Flowers. He did so much for so many. There are many times when people said they would be eating with Sid Flowers, eating lunch, and a group of soldiers would come in who maybe were new in town, maybe not. There are thousands of soldiers stationed at Fort Stewart, and Sidney would quietly walk over to the cashier, pick up the tab for the soldiers, pay for their lunch, and then ask the cashier not to tell them who paid for it. That is the kind of guy he was. Sydney was actually elected as a Republican, and many people know 35 years ago in the State of Georgia, there was almost a nonexistent Republican Party. And to be elected as a Republican, you had to be a pretty good guy, probably somebody who could get elected in either party, and somebody who was liked and had support from both parties. Yet in all cases, Sid Flowers was respected by everybody. Former Democrat State representative, a Democrat mayor and also a Republican at one time, Buddy DeLoach, has a letter about Sidney Flowers that I will submit for the Record, as well as one from Sampie Smith who was a great educator in Liberty County who has recently retired, made a run for mayor himself. But great folks in a great town. Sidney is what Sampie Smith actually described as one of those Reader's Digest types, somebody who is memorable and inspirational to a community. I will submit a number of things for the Record on Sidney Flowers so we can move on to some other issues, but I just want to thank this community for recognizing somebody of his caliber because I had the privilege of knowing him. But I can say this unequivocally, everybody in the Chamber would have liked him because he was someone you could count on and deal with, one of those great community leaders back home that we all have in our districts. I want to submit these letters and a couple of other comments about Sidney, and thank the committee. The First District of Georgia lost a great man when John Sidney ``Sid'' Flowers died August 21, 2006. It was his work as a lawyer and as the Solicitor General for Liberty County's State Court that allowed him to serve his hometown professionally, but it was his kind, often anonymous service to the people and the soldiers of Liberty County that endeared him to so many in the military town of Hinesville, Georgia. Sid Flowers was a Liberty County native who served in the U.S. Army before heading to law school at Mercer. Although he was a top student at Mercer Law and could have headed to Atlanta for the ``big money,'' he returned to Liberty County to work in his hometown. He served his community as solicitor general for nearly four decades, but he was best known for his pro bono legal advice. He gave of his legal knowledge and expertise to the First Presbyterian Church and the church's school at no charge. Many of Sid's friends mention that it was not uncommon to go to a restaurant with him, and Sid would pick up the tab for any soldiers who happened to be eating in the restaurant at the time. He did this anonymously, as he never wanted his gracious actions to be attributed. Sid Flowers has been described as ``one of those classic Reader's Digest types that folks wrote about being so memorable'' and ``an inspiration for others to become involved in community service.'' The military town of Hinesville, Georgia, lost one of its best when Sid Flowers died last year. The true spirit of this man was exemplified by his unpublished deeds, but I think its time we honor him publicly by naming the United States Post Office on Oglethorpe Highway in Hinesville, Georgia after John Sidney Flowers. Hinesville, GA, May 16, 2007. To: Congressman Jack Kingston. Dear Jack: I write to urge that the U.S. Post Office Building in Hinesville be named for John Sidney Flowers. Sidney was a lifelong resident of Hinesville and served this community in many ways. As the long time Solicitor of the state court, Sidney displayed a unique ability to do justice in all cases he handled. His calm, common sense approach to this difficult job enabled him to make a tremendous contribution to the criminal justice system. Sidney's support for community activities and organizations has been an inspiration for others to become involved in community service. He always gave freely of his time and money. He was considered by many to be an ``old time'' lawyer. He was known and trusted by everyone. Many families went to him to settle or avoid disputes. He was a master at restoring calm reason when tempers flared. He is the one we went to when we had problems, and he always took time to help us find solutions. I believe the naming of the Post Office is fitting and proper way to honor the memory of a man that did so much for this community. Sincerely, Buddy DeLoach.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise and urge passage of H. Res. 684, congratulating Shawn Johnson on her recent national championship in women's artistic gymnastics. Just this year, Shawn has won the all-around competition at the Pan American Games, the American Cup, the national championship and the world championship. She has appeared on ``ABC World News Tonight,'' ``The Ellen DeGeneres Show'' and at a gala for Pink With a Twist, a group that fights cancers among women. She has been honored with Shawn Johnson Day in Iowa, with the Longines Prize for Elegance, and as ABC's Person of the Week. All this for a 15-year-old, 4-foot 8, 88-pound high school sophomore who sometimes finds time to walk dogs at shelters and serves as a ball girl for her school's football team. She never bothered to crawl, according to her mother, Terri Johnson. At 9 months old she simply arose and began to walk. At age 3, her mother enrolled her in gymnastics class ``just to channel all her energy,'' her mom said. I think it's important to point out that it was her mom who drove her so many times to so many practices, because with all great athletes, we have to acknowledge that the parents play such a great role in it. At the age of 6, she showed up at Qiao Gymnastics in Des Moines, where Qiao was working. A former top gymnast from China, Qiao had come to the United States to study English at the University of Iowa. Although her first coach said that she had more raw strength than gymnastic ability, Coach Qiao saw her potential immediately and worked hard to nurture that talent. This means long and busy days for Shawn. After school, she heads to the gym for a 4-hour workout, then home to do school work. Yet, she maintains a 4.0 average. Unlike traditional gymnasts, artistic gymnastics traditionally has not been a sport where 15-year-olds excel. It combines the disciplines of gymnastics and ballet, and few athletes as young as Shawn have been able to master it. But through hard work, discipline and the ability and the tutelage of a good coach, she has already made her mark as one of the world's greatest gymnasts. With Pan Am, national and world titles behind her, Shawn now points towards 2008 to the summer Olympics to be held in Beijing. ``I think it would be cool, not only for me, but for him,'' she said, ``and I think it would be a proud moment for both of us.'' What I want to say to my colleagues is this is a special young woman and one that I know everyone in Iowa has a lot of pride in, but everybody in the United States shares in that pride, and I urge passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats took over the House, the price of oil was $59 a barrel. Today it's $100 a barrel. Now, I don't blame that on Democrats, but I have got to say that where is your energy bill? Where is your alternative fuels bill? I thought that in this green, ``don't leave a footstep'' or whatever it is the Speaker has promised that we were all going to be riding hybrids. But it has not happened under them. I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill with Eliot Engel that does have tax credits for buying hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles. It gives the automobile companies tax credits for making more of them. It gives the gasoline stations money to transfer to be fuel stations so that they can sell biodiesel and ethanol and hydrogen, whatever it would take to get us off Middle East oil. But the Democrat Party has shown no interest in ending our dependency on Middle East oil, and that is a national security concern of all Members, and we need to do something about it. I call on the Speaker to move a serious energy bill that addresses the high, soaring cost of fuel.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, last week the Capitol hosted a display of electric cars, hybrids like the Toyota Prius and various generations. And there was one car that got my attention. It was an Auto-Cycle. It was a one-man car. It would go 75 miles an hour. And the owner of it did not drive it in from Ohio where it was made, but he said he could have. It goes 75 miles an hour. And if you have a car like that in town, you basically plug it in every day and you run all day long, and you don't use one ounce of gas. I am a cosponsor of something called the DRIVE Act. It is a bipartisan bill cosponsored by me and Eliot Engel of New York. The idea behind it is to get off Middle East oil by increasing the incentive to buy hybrid cars, flex-fuel vehicles, electric vehicles, biodiesels, cars that run on ethanol, and a number of other alternative-fuel vehicles. We have the technology that's out there. We are doubling, in the DRIVE Act, the tax credit for buying hybrids in such cars. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the DRIVE Act.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about my dad. My dad is 89 years old. He has never owned a credit card. He has never even had a digital telephone. He doesn't have a computer. He doesn't have Internet. He is not interested in any of it. And yet, as removed as he might be from computer technology on a day-to-day basis, as it would appear in his personal life, the truth of the matter is, no one is isolated from high tech today. His veterans payments, his Social Security payments, his bank transfers, his Medicare, all of this comes to him through computer networks. If anybody messes up those computer networks, my 89-year-old dad will not get the services that he needs. That's why this is so important today. I am proud that in 2002 Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, Georgia, began its Regional Center for Cyber-security Education and Training. This was part of the G-8 Summit which was held in Savannah, Georgia, in 2004, and they played a key role in the law enforcement efforts surrounding the G-8. Since then, Armstrong Atlantic State University has taken on partners of Washington Group International and Bridgeborn, and they are offering all kinds of computer security training programs, from simulating and modeling to visualization, covert channels, cyber-security and security of networks. Why is this important? Now, Mr. McCaul said there are 200 million U.S. citizens connected to the Internet. The number of people with access has increased over 182 percent from 2000 to 2005. In 2006, total non-travel-related spending on the Internet is estimated to be over $100 billion. That is a 24 percent increase over 2005. In 2005, the FBI has estimated that American businesses lost $67 billion because of computer crime. The United States is the location of 40 percent of the known command- and-control servers; and because of that, we are the target of attack after attack. Most of these are executed by botnets, which are a collection of broadband-enabled PCs hijacked during virus and worm attacks and seeded with software that connects back to a server to receive communications from a remote attacker. In other words, the botnets all work together to simultaneously, consistently and constantly attack computer networks, such as the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Energy. In fact, in America our governmental computers alone get millions of attacks each and every day. It is something that we all should be very concerned about. The United States was the top country of attack origin, making up 33 percent of the worldwide attack activity. Personal information, for example, on veterans in May 2006 was taken home with a Veterans Administration employee. Approximately 26.5 million veterans had their own personal information compromised simply because one employee took a laptop home. Now 25 years ago that may have required a truckload to carry that many files home. But just think about it, all he did was take a laptop home. And if the employee's house had not been broken into and the laptop stolen, we still might not have known about it. In mid-June of 2006, the Department was spending approximately $200,000 a day just to operate a call center to explain to veterans how this might affect their service. Of course, there are class action lawsuits that have followed, and there will be a lot more discussion about that. In September 2000, a 16-year-old young man by the name of Jonathan James, who lived in Florida, hacked into a Pentagon system that monitors threats from nuclear weapons and a NASA system that supports the international space station. This gave him access to over 3,000 government e-mail messages. He was able to illegally access a total of 13 NASA computers and downloaded software which supported the International Space Station's physical environment, including control of the temperature and humidity within the living space. In February 2001, Gary McKinnon of London took a poorly secured Windows system of NASA and the Pentagon and 12 other military operations and caused almost $1 million worth of damage by just basically playing around, stealing passwords and deleting files. We know that in March 2000, Max Ray Butler, a 27-year-old computer expert working as an FBI informant, was indicted on 15 criminal counts for allegedly hacking into the U.S. Department of Defense, NASA, and Air Force computer systems. In 2007, he was once again indicted on charges of identity theft and wire fraud. The list goes on and on, even to the extent that you have folks in China purposely attacking American systems, including the Pentagon. I will submit some of these for the Record, but the list goes on and on. That is why it is very important for us to support this legislation and have Members talking about it and knowledgeable. If you think about cyber-security now, the cost of it is more than what it is for the illegal drug trade in America. Cyber-crime outstripped illegal drug sales worldwide and analysts estimate online fraud will bring in $105 billion in 2007. This is a huge problem, but it is kind of a quiet problem and this resolution helps raise its visibility. Submissions of examples for the Record June 2007: China's army hacked into a computer network at the Pentagon. Computer specialists with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) penetrated an unclassified network used by policy aides to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in June, resulting in a weeklong shutdown of the system. May 2000: Montreal teenage hacker pleaded guilty to illegally penetrating the computer systems of several Canadian and foreign institutions, including NASA, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others. October 2002 to March 2003: Raymond Paul Steigerwalt, 21, infected DOD server with TK worm. The worm exploited well- known vulnerabilities in Microsoft's IIS Web Server to spread across the Internet and install backdoors under the control of hackers onto infected systems. July 2006: State Department had large-scale computer break- ins worldwide that appeared to target its headquarters and offices dealing with China and North Korea. Hackers stole sensitive U.S. information and passwords and implanted backdoors in unclassified government computers to allow them to return at will.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I thank the gentleman from California for your support of this legislation and your kind words about Charlie Norwood. This bill, Charlie would really approve of it because it has three things that Charlie loved dearly. He loved veterans; he loved Augusta, Georgia; and he loved medicine and doctors giving medicine and taking care of patients. Probably the only things he loved more were his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; his wife, Gloria, and their family; and, indeed, the United States of America. Charlie was a happy warrior. We all know Charlie. And whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him, he always smiled, and he always expected you to push back. He never would resent your opposition to any philosophical point whatsoever, and that was a double-edged sword. He was a Republican's Republican at times; but I can say this, if it meant doing something he believed in, he would oppose the Republican Party. We all remember the Norwood-Dingell bill which Charlie championed that was part of the patients' bill of rights, and that was a bill which was largely not supported by the Republican Party. And yet Charlie just charged away and said we're going to do this because it's the right thing. And he earned the respect of both sides of the aisle by handling this. I remember him relating a story to me when the President of the United States called him and said, Charlie, what can I do to get you to back off this bill a little bit and give us some flexibility? And I believe he said, Mr. President, not a thing. But if you know Charlie and you know the President, that conversation probably has been cleaned up a little bit. But the whole time you could see both of them kidding back and forth because that was the nature of Charlie Norwood. I remember one time I used to represent Emanuel County, and because of reapportionment, Charlie became the Representative. I said, Charlie, now, you're from Augusta. These folks are rural. I need to go up and introduce you. They're not going to take to you easily. We were going to meet about 7:30 in the morning in a local restaurant, a little diner, the epitome of what you always see on TV. And I got there just a few minutes late, and I thought, oh, man, Charlie has been surrounded by these farmers for a while now and I've embarrassed him by coming late and they're looking at this Augusta city slicker whom they've never met before. I walked in and it was like interrupting somebody else's family reunion. Charlie was sitting at a table surrounded by farmers, surrounded by rural folks, while Charlie spun one yarn after another about what was wrong in Washington, DC. They loved him, and I hardly even got a place at the table, sort of nodded my head and said, Charlie, you take it from here and said to my former constituents, ``You guys are in very, very good hands.'' I remember one commercial that Charlie had, and I had been elected the term before Charlie. So I had a little bit to say here and there and Charlie had actually never been in elected office. Many of us had served in the Georgia General Assembly together, and Charlie ran an ad that said, I'm going to do what I can for you. I'm going to try to do my best, but I'll tell you this, if you're from the 10th District of Georgia, I don't care who you are, I'm going to do anything I can to help you. I said in my sage way, Charlie, now, look, if somebody has broken the law, you don't want to make that statement out there that you are going to help anybody for anything. He said, No, I will, and that's the way I feel. People understood that about Charlie Norwood, that he was a fighter for them, he was a fighter for the cause, and he literally did mean it. If I can help you, I am going to do what I can for you. I see we are about out of time on my half of the program here, but I want to state some facts for the Record about Charlie. Mr. Boozman has outlined a lot of the specifics of his military career, but it is substantial. He was a fighter over and over again for the veterans. Again, he would be with the Republican Party or with the Democrat Party if it was in the best interests of the veterans. That's why it's so good to have such strong bipartisan support for this legislation today. We want to say, Charlie, we love you. Gloria, and all the family, we certainly love you as well and support you. It's going to be a proud day when we get this building renamed. As a soldier, Charlie earned both the Combat Medical badge and two Bronze stars while he served in Vietnam. He helped develop the Dental Corps standard operating procedures of delivering dentists to forward- fire bases. He dutifully served and provided dental, emergency medical and surgical care for both U.S. personnel as well as Vietnamese civilians and prisoners-of-war. As a Congressman, he co-authored and helped pass into law the Keep our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act and was also a key Member in passing the Retired Pay Restoration Act. Year after year, he defeated attempts to reduce Federal support for the Augusta VA Center and helped maintain and increase funding for the center. He received the Cocklin Award from the Association of the U.S. Army in 1998. Over the past few months, we have received letters from several veterans organizations in support of this legislation. Here is a sample of what some of them had to say: ``We support this bill as Congressman Norwood spent his life supporting the overall well being of veterans''--Georgia Department of Veterans ``He was a member of the Augusta MOAA chapter and he would attend meetings unannounced to make sure he stayed in touch with Georgia veterans. He was always quick to protect TRICARE benefits, and he co- sponsored legislation to fix the military Survivor Benefit plan inequities, and improving military pay raises''--Georgia Military Officers Association of America ``Designating the Augusta VA after Charlie Norwood is the most appropriate act for a great Congressman and a grateful community''--The American Legion, Department of Georgia (Note: He was a life member of the Georgia chapter) ``Renaming the Department of VA in memory of Congressman Norwood would be very fitting and greatly appreciated''--Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Georgia ``Speaking with the veterans in Augusta, you can tell that most of them do not want to forget the great things that he has done for all veterans. As a native of Augusta, Congressman Norwood would always be remembered by renaming the VAMC located there.''--AmVets, Department of Georgia Former Congressman Charles Taylor: ``I know the many Veterans who received care through Charlie's many efforts would like to say thank you. He often reminded us, `we are in fact defending our nation's future' by showing young people the `level of importance we place on military service'''. Former Congressman Bob Beauprez: ``Charlie epitomized the phrase `servant leader'. He went about his work daily without thought of himself, building a legacy, or attracting notoriety. Headlines he did not seek, and even in his battle with the disease that finally took him from us, sympathy was never his objective. He could make a decision and he could argue passionately for a cause, but he also was one of the most caring, forgiving, decent, humble Christian men I ever met.'' President Bush: ``Charlie was a good friend and a strong, spirited legislator who always stuck to his principles, remembering that his duty was to represent the best interests of the citizens of his district.'' From the New York Times obituaries: ``A feisty conservative who railed against government bureaucracy, Mr. Norwood was part of the Republican wave that took control of Congress in 1994. Mr. Norwood prided himself on serving his northeast Georgia district, promoting his success in cutting through federal regulations a decade ago to allow a constituent to bring home a stuffed polar bear the man had killed on a hunting trip in Canada.''

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about my dad. My dad is 89 years old. He has never owned a credit card. He has never even had a digital telephone. He doesn't have a computer. He doesn't have Internet. He is not interested in any of it. And yet, as removed as he might be from computer technology on a day-to-day basis, as it would appear in his personal life, the truth of the matter is, no one is isolated from high tech today. His veterans payments, his Social Security payments, his bank transfers, his Medicare, all of this comes to him through computer networks. If anybody messes up those computer networks, my 89-year-old dad will not get the services that he needs. That's why this is so important today. Today there are some 64,000 hacker programs that are available to consumers for free. In addition, there are 12,000 that if you pay $1,000 for them, you get 1 year's support. Support for a hacker program, can you imagine that. And America's computers are absolutely under siege. I am proud that in 2002 Armstrong Atlantic University in Savannah, Georgia, began its Regional Center for Cybersecurity Education and Training. This was part of the G-8 Summit which was held in Savannah, Georgia, in 2004, and they played a key role in the law enforcement efforts surrounding the G-8. Since then, Armstrong Atlantic University has taken on partners of Washington Group International and Bridgeborn, and they are offering all kinds of computer security training programs, from simulating and modeling to visualization, covert channels, cybersecurity and security of networks. Why is this important? Now, Mr. McCaul said there are 200 million U.S. citizens connected to the Internet. It is even more than that. The numbers of people with access have increased over 182 percent from 2000 to 2005. In 2006, total nontravel-related spending on the Internet is estimated to be over $100 billion. That is a 24 percent increase over 2005. In 2005 the FBI has estimated that American businesses lost $67 billion because of computer crime, and that number of $67 billion in 2005 has moved to over $105 billion in 2007. The United States is the location of 40 percent of the known command- and-control servers; and because of that, we are the target of attack after attack. Most of these are executed by botnets, which are a collection of broadband-enabled PCs hijacked during virus and worm attacks and seeded with software that connects back to a server to receive communications from a remote attacker. In other words, the botnets all work together to simultaneously and consistently and constantly attack computer networks, such as the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Energy. In fact, in America our governmental computers alone get millions of attacks each and every day. It is something that we all should be very concerned about. The United States was the top country for malicious activity, making up over 31 percent of the worldwide total. Personal information, for example, on veterans in May 2006 was taken home with a Veterans Administration employee, and 26 million veterans had their own personal information compromised simply because one employee took a laptop home. Now 25 years ago that may have required a truckload to carry that many files home. But just think about it, all he did was take a laptop home. And if the employee's house had not been broken into and the laptop stolen, we still might not have known about it. The Department ended up spending $200,000 a day just to operate a call center to explain to veterans how this might affect their service. Of course, there are class action lawsuits that have followed, and there will be a lot more discussion about that. In September 2000, a 16-year-old young man in Florida intercepted 3,300 e-mails from one Department of Defense operation. He also stole 13 NASA computers. In February 2001, Gary McKinnon of London took a poorly secured Windows system of NASA and the Pentagon and 12 other military operations and caused almost $1 million worth of damage by just basically playing around. We know that in March 2007 Max Ray Butler, a 27-year-old computer expert working as an FBI informant was indicted on 15 criminal counts for allegedly hacking into the U.S. Department of Defense Air Force and other computer-sensitive systems. The list goes on and on, even to the extent that you have folks in China and North Korea purposely attacking American systems. I will submit some of these for the Record, but the list goes on and on. That is why it is very important for us to support this legislation and have Members talking about it and knowledgeable. If you think about cybersecurity now, the cost of it is more than what it is for the illegal drug trade in America. This is a huge problem, but it is kind of a quiet problem and this resolution helps raise its visibility.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. One thing you can always count on in Washington is whenever we pass any legislation, it's always going to be in the name of the children, or the seniors or Mama or puppies or clean air or all things small and beautiful. In fact, the Speaker of the House the other day used the word ``children'' in her speech 44 different times, because politicians are always altruistic with other people's money. Now, the SCHIP program was designed to help the working poor, not to help people who make $82,000 a year, who might not be rich, but they are certainly not poor. It is designed for American children. It wasn't designed for illegal aliens and yet the Democrats have thrown out the citizenship test. That's the last thing we need is more benefits for illegal aliens. And then there will be 780,000 adults on this program. This is the children's health care program. While the Democrats will tell you, well, that's only 30 percent, it should be 100 percent children. The President is right in vetoing this sham.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker. I rise today in recognition of the retirement of Vernon Martin, the Executive Director of the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center. Vernon has been a valuable partner in my efforts to represent the First District of Georgia and a great friend. Over the many years that we have known each other, he has been wonderful to work with and always kept the safety, security, and well- being of the community in the forefront of his thoughts. Vernon has dedicated 38 years of service to Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, where he was instrumental in the economic development of the region. The service area for his office has undergone tremendous change in the past four decades. Coastal Georgia needed leadership and hard work to transition from the slow growth rates that characterized prior eras to the booming growth that the region is now experiencing. Vernon and his staff at the RDC have provided steady guidance and support to the communities they serve, helping them prepare for the future and adapt to change. Vernon's list of accomplishments over the years is a long one. He was active in the creation of Coastal Emergency Management Plan to insure the safety of Georgia's costal communities during hurricanes, established the Nation's first and largest rural revolving loan fund, helped to create one of the Nation's first regional rural tourism program and was involved in coordinating off-base impact planning for two major military installation expansions. In 2004, Vernon was awarded the Walter Scheiber Leadership Award for his support to the Association and for his outstanding leadership and innovation as a regional council executive director. Although he will be missed at the Regional Development Center, we are all glad to know that he will still serve in an advisory capacity and help transition to a new Executive Director. I'm sure Vernon is counting the days until he can fully enjoy the beautiful Georgia weather on his beloved motorcycle. I wish him the best of luck in his retirement.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Because as I understand it, Trent Lott lost a family home that was like 100 years old or something in Mississippi. There was no Federal insurance program of any nature when that house was built, which is my point for Boston and for Savannah, Georgia. All of those old buildings never had any Federal insurance programs: fire, flood or windstorm or anything else. And what I'm saying is I agree with you. They are not pleasant to work with, and I understand and I want to commend the gentleman for his great work on this. But the reality is, if the Federal Government steps in, the private sector will move out.

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes.