Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am opposed to the amendment because I am opposed to the bill. One of the great things about Congress, I say to people, is it is the ultimate place for those of us with attention deficit disorder, because we have the privilege on a day-to-day basis to go from health care, to war, to weapons systems. Which airplane is better, the C-5 or the C-17? To go to farm issues. How about the cotton program? Is it good? Well, should we model it after the peanut program? Then education: college, primary, private school. Should there be prayer? Should we lower the student-teacher ratio? Indeed, the President of the United States, President Clinton, stood in this Chamber once and called for school uniforms. We were experts on that for the day. Tax policy: Who should get tax breaks and who should not? Trade policies: Which countries are going to be the best to trade with us? Immigration. The list goes on and on and on. But, unfortunately, our expertise does not continue with the demand and the issues. And here we are talking about popcorn. I would say to my friend from California that 99.9 percent of the Members here have never been in a popcorn factory. I listened to my friend, Mr. Miller. He knows a lot about this. I am impressed that he knows mixing rooms and building walls and so forth, but I would say most of us do not. That is why we have agencies and commissions like OSHA set up, because they fill in the blanks where we cannot be experts. They have scientists who go in and make rulemaking policies in a balanced way, nonpolitical and nonemotional. It is scientific. They go in there and say, before we go out and set a bunch of standards on the private sector, let's make sure that we have the experts doing the decisionmaking. And yet here we are, the nanny-state of Congress. Nurse Ratched once more knows best, completely oblivious to the fact that one of the largest manufacturers of microwave popcorn just recently said they would eliminate this product from their bands, and another manufacturer did the same thing. And even OSHA on September 24 said they will move forward with various measures to address the hazards of the workplace. I think it is interesting that we have set up OSHA to help us, and yet we have decided now that we know popcorn and we know best. But I would say to my friend from California, your expertise is not matched by 99 percent of us. I would say Ms. Woolsey, being a great Member who does her homework, and Mr. Wilson and the staffers who are here, you all are popcorn experts in Congress, and that's it. There are no other popcorn experts in Congress. I think we do have some experts on trade and on taxes and on military things, but even they have to rely on agencies and organizations to give them better information. Yet we are leapfrogging over this information. I don't know if it is political or what, but we seem to be in a big rush to forget the standards that should be set by the proper agency. Later, we will have the opportunity to vote on the Wilson alternative that would give OSHA time to set a standard that would be, after a NIOSH study, based on solid scientific evidence. It seems to me that is a more reasonable and balanced approach to solving this problem. And we are not even convinced. The data doesn't even say this problem is as big and as urgent as those who are advocating this bill are. So I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment, even though I know it is technical in nature. But I think we should ultimately vote on the Wilson amendment in support of it, and then I think we should pass the bill. But if the Wilson amendment does not pass, we should vote this bill down. Because Congress is not an expert on this and we should know our limitations and we should let the proper agencies with the scientists and the experts make the rulemaking on something so micro- technical as micro-popcorn.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to oppose this bill. As much as anything, I want to say the children's health care bill, you would think would get a little more dignity in the process around here. This is a 299-page bill which we received, ``we,'' minority Republicans, received at 6 p.m. last night, or maybe even later than that. That doesn't give you a lot of time to work on a bill and have any kind of bipartisan deliberations. Plus, there is no motion to recommit. Now I know that is inside-the- Beltway stuff, but this is important if you are talking children's health care. What I do know is that in the bill, adults are still allowed to be covered by it. Adults can push poor children out of the way because States are going to politically favor them and let them have the opportunity to be insured. I know there is a massive tax increase. I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days, but it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers in the United States of America. Now, maybe the Democrat Party is planning to pass out cigarettes at the schools and say to the kids: Hey, look, start smoking so you can finance your own insurance company. And you'll probably be needing it, by the way, wink-wink. But in the meantime, the government gets to grow. The bureaucracy gets to grow. The nanny-state, more like the Nurse Ratchet states, continues to grow at the expense of children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago President Harry Truman, through the National Security Act of 1947, created the United States Air Force and ended a 40-year association with the U.S. Army. This move signaled the dawning of a new age and placed airpower in its proper place as a vital element of our Nation's defense. Airpower had proven its worth to President Truman and many others over those 40 years. From Military Air Balloon success in World War I, to Billy Mitchell's airpower demonstration off Virginia's coast, to the Doolittle Raids and the devastating bombing raids in World War II, airpower allowed our military commanders to fight for and defend our Nation as never before. Creating a separate Air Force allowed our brave service men and women to fully concentrate on honing the skills and pushing the ever- expanding envelope of airpower. In Georgia today, we have Air National Guard and/or Air Force Reserve units at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Robins Air Force Base, Savannah, Macon and Brunswick as well as active-duty units at Moody Air Force Base. And whether it is C-130s from the 165th Airlift Wing or men and women from the 117th Air Control Squadron which just won the 2007 Outstanding Air Control Squadron award from the National Guard Association of the United States, each of Georgia's units and the outstanding men and women who serve in them contribute around the world fighting the Global War on Terrorism. They also provide a formidable force in the face of disaster here at home, as was seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when rescue helicopters from Moody teamed up with other Air Force rescue units to save more than 4,300 people from the disastrous and deadly storm. Dobbins, Robins and Moody can all trace their beginnings to the Army and the 1940-1941 timeframe when the War Department was making preparations in case the United States went to war--which came to fruition on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese declared War on the United States and attacked Pearl Harbor. Dobbins began as Rickenbacker Field, but was re-named in 1950 in honor of Captain Charles M. Dobbins of Marietta, whose airplane was shot down during the war near Sicily. Robins is named after Brigadier General Augustine Warner Robins, one of the Army Air Corps' first General Staff Officers. The Warner Robins Air Logistic Center which preceded the base is also named after the General. Moody is named after MAJ George Putnam Moody, an early Air Force pioneer killed in May 1941 while serving with the Beech Aircraft Company in Wichita, Kan. At the time of his death, the major was working on the inspection board for AT-10 transitional trainers which were later sent to Moody. While each base has a rich history, Moody began a new chapter in its history just recently when the 23rd Fighter Group relocated to Moody and began flying A-10 missions in the skies over Valdosta. The 23rd Fighter Group also known as the ``Flying Tigers'' was formed under the command of General Claire Chennault and was part of his China Air Task Force, taking over the mission of the disbanded American volunteer group ``Flying Tigers.'' Several of the original Flying Tigers flew with the 23rd Fighter Group in the China-Burma-India Theater, passing on their knowledge and experience. Like Mitchell before him, Chennault was another early pioneer and controversial figure who made today's Air Force possible. He argued vehemently for the fighter plane in the 1930s--a time when the rise of the bomber aircraft had consumed the Air Corps experts and were the focus for their tactics. In fact, it was his continued belief and passionate advocacy for the fighter that led to his isolation at the famed Air Tactical School and eventually drove him to become an advisor in China and the rest as we say is history. Today we mark the Air Force's 60th birthday in order to reflect on its heroes of the past, and more importantly, to recognize the courage and sacrifice our airmen and their families make each and every day for our freedom. Quite simply, I salute you.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I do, but they're not here quite yet.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I want to say that I support this for two reasons. Number one, this bill will be vetoed by the President should it make it through the United States Senate, which is doubtful to begin with, but that's nothing we can control over here. But we know the President has sent out a veto message that the spending level is too high. We have debated this in committee before. I offered a similar amendment that failed. But I think we need to be realistic. The bill that we're spending tonight is not realistic. Number two, I want to point out something. This is actually not a 5.5 percent cut because it's not an $18 billion bill. It's really a $90 billion bill. However, because of what I would call negligence on the part of the House, practiced by Republicans and Democrats over the years, we have decided to put about three-quarters of this bill on automatic spending. We call it mandatory. Now, nothing is mandatory when you make the laws. Nothing is mandatory. So it's kind of lazy. It's just sort of ``spend as is.'' And my friend from Connecticut has said that the gentleman from Ohio's amendment would actually take the nutrition and food programs away from children, yet most of them fall into this red category, which isn't even touched by his amendment. His amendment is actually very conservative. It only affects about the $18 billion portion of this bill. And again, that's not where most of these food programs are, these critical programs. Now, I'm a believer that we should be debating both the red and the yellow portions of this bill and look at it realistically because this is a $90 billion bill, and the 5.5 percent only affects $18 billion. And with that, I want to say that's why I think that it is important for us to always look into the authorizing side of a spending bill and the discretionary side. I do support the amendment. And we have had this amendment, a similar amendment, in committee already. My friends on the committee have known my position on this.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. I wanted to say what we are talking about here is if a business goes and gets a loan, then the government, because it is a government loan, turns around then and basically dictates what they have to pay, and what they have to pay is a higher wage than it is in most communities. Otherwise, the Democrats would not be putting it in here. If this was about free enterprise, this clause would not be in the farm bill. And my biggest gripe is that it is making energy costs go up because it is making the construction of alternative energy facilities higher. As Mr. King says, it is about a 20 percent bump in the cost of construction of a cellulosic ethanol plant. That's why I think it is a concern. Who is going to pay for this? The consumers at the pump. And, in the meantime, there might be fewer alternatives. In Georgia right now my good friend, Mr. Scott, knows we have three ethanol plants on the books, another two coming, and potentially 70 to 80 that will be built in the next 2 to 3 years. Now those are not all cellulosic ethanol plants, but why should we increase the cost of those? I am excited about this because it does represent a new avenue in alternative fuels, and I don't think we should make anything increase the cost of that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I want to say this is a major policy change. That is why we are here debating it. It is unfortunate we don't have a full Chamber. But the reason that I offer this amendment is because I think we should have the floor engaged on it, and we will have that opportunity tonight. Number two, people are doing this. There are 1 to 3 million people who are buying Canadian drugs and drugs from other countries right now. If we are interested in safety, we will find a way to make this safe. This is a country that just invented the iFone, the iPod, the navigation system, and all this stuff. We can figure out how to make these drugs safe. Finally, as Ms. Kaptur said, these are certified drugs made in the United States in most cases.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think I have one more in the wing. So let me again enlighten you with some of my wisdom, if I may yield myself 1 minute. One of the amendments that we have been working on in this bill is the insistence that those who sell or contract to the Federal Government use Social Security verification. There's a program called the Basic Pilot Program, and we have that amendment in the bill. I think it's important people realize that the idea is that if you're doing business with the Federal Government you should be in compliance with the law of the land, which is to have legal employees; and what this does is requires those vendors and sales corporations and contractors and subcontractors to show that they are in compliance by having Social Security verification. I'm excited about this amendment. I think it's very important. President Clinton actually did the same thing February 13, 1996, by executive order; and I am hoping that if there's some problems with this amendment that as this bill moves through the process we may need to tinker with it a little bit but that we can keep the gist of it. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers around, and I yield back my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that Mr. Nadler is concerned equally with Mr. Fossella, but I wanted to make sure that Mr. Fossella wasn't being cut out of the colloquy. So the reason why I reserved the right to object is I just wanted a better explanation from the gentleman.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the unanimous consent request in order under the closed rule?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. In other words, out of the 15 minutes of general debate, that is where the time would come from?

Mr. KINGSTON. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. KINGSTON. And I want to say, we will certainly work with the gentleman from Kansas. I know you are an advocate on this.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. KINGSTON. I don't have a way to say this directly to my friend from Connecticut, but I will be glad to yield 1 minute of our time to Mr. Fossella and that way we can bring this to 2 minutes, but I don't know how to get there unless I ask a question like this.