Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. And I thank the Chair and congratulate both of you on your work for this bill. I want to say, however, I do not support it. I am very disappointed that after the bill left the Appropriations Committee and went to the Rules Committee, a funny thing happened. All this transparency and all this promise of open government and open rules seemed to fade away in a dark corner room up on the third floor of this building, because there were 23 amendments offered, and yet only three of them were accepted. We talk about bipartisanship and we talk about sunshine in the process, and yet this is the very bill that basically funds and perhaps even governs our own body, our own congressional branch, and yet it has the closed rule. And 20 amendments won't get the sunshine, will not get the debate because of the Rules Committee under Democrat leadership. I would say you need to go back to your campaign brochures and look at all the promises that you made before you pass another rule like this. One of the casualties of this closed process was an amendment that I offered that deals with contractors who deal with the Federal Government, who work for the Federal Government. I'll give you some examples. December 2005, 22 Mexican nationals were found illegally working in Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. January 27, 2001, illegal aliens were found working at Fort Benning, Georgia. March 2007, the Golden State Fence Company was actually fined because, in building a border security fence, they had hired 10 illegal aliens. It doesn't stop there. In Louisiana, December 2005, a local company was busted working on a Veterans Administration hospital because they had illegal aliens. This is absurd. Now, I've heard from many people the theme of ``leading by example.'' Perhaps one thing we could do and absolutely should do is require that if you are contracting for the Federal Government, that you have a Social Security verification process going in your business, more than the sham, more than the, Yeah, but we have an I-9 kind of approach that we're seeing. And this would actually say you need to be in the ICE, which is the Customs and Immigration Enforcement Service, you need to be in the ICE Basic Pilot Program, which is a way to know that your employees have correct and legal Social Security numbers. That's all the amendment would have done. I would predict that this amendment would get lots of bipartisan support because we see that the biggest issue facing America, besides Iraq and perhaps energy, is the issue of illegal immigration. And here was an opportunity for us to make a definitive statement, to have a significant amendment added to the bill, and the Democrats said no. I hope they'll reconsider on future legislation.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. KINGSTON. I am in its current form.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment to bring something to the Members' attention that I think is very important. We are about to create a fourth building for the House of Representatives. We have Cannon, we have Rayburn, we have Longworth. We are about to put on another 200,000-square-foot building. I think you should know about it, and I think we deserve a vote on it. Number one, this is an earmark. Now, we have been talking weeks and weeks and months and months about transparency and ending earmarks. Yet if you will look in the report on page 20, there is a $16 million earmark for a new House office building. There is no explanation of the project, no total cost, there have been no hearings and no oversight, and it is not in the Democrat budget. It was not requested by the Architect of the Capitol, and, yet, it's in the bill. Now, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, could be an earmark. That's where we are on this. Number two, I think Members have the right to vote on a fourth office building. As former chair of this committee, one of the big frustrations I have about the Capitol Visitors Center is none of us owned the project. There wasn't one person that you could say it's his or her fault. It was all diluted and by committee. We never had a vote on it. Indeed, when I was a chairman of this committee, a staffer put in $18 million to renovate the House floor, which none of us knew about. I took the money out of it, as did Chairman Lewis last year. But things get stuck in the bills that we don't know about that we deserve a vote on. This gives you an opportunity, unlike the CVC, which started out as a $260 million project, with partial private funding, and now is up to $600 million. This motion to recommit gives you the opportunity to vote on something and say no to something that has already cost this House $140 million. This is a 200,000-square-foot building. That's the size of 15 House floors. It's the size of four White Houses. It's five football fields big. This isn't incidental swing space. What is this needed for? In case we renovate the Cannon House Office Building. Now, don't you want to vote on that? I haven't had a debate on renovating the Cannon Office Building, but I want to know about it. This is a big building of substance, and you deserve a vote. Incidentally, this isn't going to be the only new building. We are adding 580,000 square feet in the form of the Capitol Visitors Center. This building is huge. To move forward, it's going to cost us not the $16 million that's in the bill, but actually $56 million, and then another $12 million to lease it, plus $18 million for furniture for it. Think about it. How many times have we heard from some Members in a rather preachy fashion, we need to control our carbon footprints? Ladies and gentlemen, all of those of you who want to reduce our carbon footprint, here is your opportunity. Say ``no'' to a 200,000-square- foot boondoggle which we are about to put in. This has not had the proper oversight, it has not had the proper hearings. The contracts have all been verbal. That's why we are all in the situation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to know, is it in the Democrat budget?

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I want to point out that this discussion is interesting, and, as Mr. Dreier has said to Mr. Cardoza, it is worthy of debate. I want to ask my friend, were you here during the anthrax threat? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, it is important because there is a little history here, Madam Speaker, but during the period of time in which much of the Longworth office was shut down and evacuated right in the wake of 9/11, I don't know how many Members, and perhaps Mr. Dreier knows, but we all had temporary offices in a building downtown, and I do not remember which building that was. But it was interesting. That was a direct threat to the United States Congress, and some of the offices were closed down for maybe a couple of months. I moved my entire staff off premises. And so to say now that we have to construct expensive, unnecessary swing space just to fill in a gap is ridiculous. I want to point out that I think it's important for newer Members to realize there is a history, there is a precedent. And because of the Rules Committee shutting down this amendment and free speech, most Members won't know that we are trying to prevent something that we've already gone through before, and that is temporarily locating elsewhere in a secure premises. I wanted to commend Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the Chair, and the ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for what they have done on the CVC, the Capitol Visitors Center. It is a monstrosity; something we're all very disappointed in. When I was Chair of this committee, we tried our best to get our arms around it. One of the things that we all discussed is unfortunately it's kind of a bicameral problem. You don't have one head of the snake, one committee, one Chair who was fully responsible from alpha to omega. I commend the committee on what they've done on this. I do think that with this FDA building we are creating another CVC boondoggle, as already outlined and debated in the committee. Since 2002, we've been debating this unnecessary additional office space, this swing space. And at the same time, the committee of the same government agencies are involved in it that have given us the CVC. So not to allow that amendment on the floor is something, in my opinion, is worth voting ``no'' on the whole rule debate. The other amendment that I offered, among the many amendments that were turned down by the Democrats, it's very important to say the people who talked about sunshine so much are now denying it on the bill that tells this institution and the public so much about ourselves. No one gets elected or unelected on leg branch politics, except it does show what your culture of leadership is. If you don't allow sunshine, if you don't allow an open rule, if you don't allow open debate on your own piece of legislation that governs the House, then how can you go around and pontificate from coast to coast what an open government you're going to bring the United States people? I know that the members of the Rules Committee and the members of the Appropriations Committee have somewhat been under a mandate, maybe even a gag order, by the leadership, but I would say there is huge hypocrisy and irony in this. Another important amendment that I offered has to do with the Basic Pilot Program. And I'll ask you this: Do you think that people who do construction for the Federal Government should have legal employees, or should they be allowed to have illegal aliens? Well, we know and the Chair would be interested to know about the situation in California, because it's been such a hot debate out there, and the folks who have been building the fence, that the folks who are constructing the fence were busted for having illegal aliens to build a fence to keep illegal aliens out of the country. That is absurd. Similarly, we see this all over the place on Air Forces bases and Federal institutions, where contractors come in, and after close scrutiny we find they are hiring illegal aliens. What the amendment would have done, which I believe would have wide bipartisan support, simply says that you need Social Security verification if you're going to do business with the Federal Government. No big deal, except for in this town and in this Chamber somehow that might offend some of our K Street friends, or should I say some other people's K Street friends. Because folks I know back home, they want Social Security verification. Unless you attack the job magnet, you're always going to have the attraction for illegals to come into the country. This would give us an opportunity to lead by example to say we're not going to let you do business with the Federal Government unless you have verified Social Security. And the program is run by ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. It's called the Basic Pilot Program. Nothing controversial whatsoever. However, the Rules Committee is not even going to allow us to have a vote on it. I cannot believe that the people one year ago, indeed, 7 months ago, were campaigning out there, telling Americans the Democrats are going to deliver open and honest government, because this rule is anything but that.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I wish to commemorate the 45 years of dedicated service City Manager Jackie Wilson has given to the community of Douglas, Georgia. From the beginning, Jackie Wilson has raced out of the gate full speed with a pragmatic approach to community development. She started as Executive Secretary to the City Manager of Douglas in 1962. In 1972, she transferred to the Urban Renewal Department as Assistant Director, and in 1974 became the Director of Urban Renewal. In 1975 when Urban Renewal was phased out, she became the Director of Community Development. In 1995, she was named Assistant City Manager. In January of 2002, when the former City Manager resigned, she was appointed City Manager. During her time of service she has received numerous outstanding awards. In 1985, she received the Douglas-Coffee County Outstanding Leadership and Service Award. In 1992, the Georgia Municipal Association Eighth District Community Leadership Award. In 2006, she received the Douglas-Coffee County Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Authority Women In Leadership Award. This award will now be given annually and has been named the ``Jackie L. Wilson Women In Leadership Award''. In 2007 she has been selected as an Honored Member of the Heritage Registry of Who's Who 2007-2008 Edition. On June 30, 2007 Jackie Wilson will retire and spend time with her five grandchildren. Through her hard work and dedication she has been a great example for the community of Douglas, Georgia.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in 2004, we spent $103 billion buying oil from nondemocratic countries, countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Russia, and the list goes on and on. Indeed, we are funding both sides in the war on terrorism, because every time we send money to these folks, the money winds up in the hands of somebody, some group, who doesn't stand for what we stand for and often is overtly anti-American. That's why we should pass the DRIVE Act, which I have co-sponsored with Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel. The DRIVE Act seeks to reduce our oil consumption by 20 percent, which is roughly the amount of oil we buy from the Middle East. We do this through tax incentives, putting people in hybrids and flex-fuel vehicles, getting gas stations to convert to flex-fuel stations so that they can sell ethanol and biodiesel and giving a tax incentive for automobile manufacturers so that they can work with lightweight material to make cars more fuel efficient. Please co-sponsor the DRIVE Act.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer of the United States Army, Colonel James F. King, Jr., upon his retirement after more than 20 years of distinguished service to our Nation. I came to know Colonel Jim King in 2001 when he was selected as an Army Congressional Fellow, and became my Military Legislative Assistant during the historic year following the tragic events of September 11th. Our Nation was still recovering from the attacks, and we were thrust into the war against terror in Afghanistan. Jim handled all my National Defense matters during this very challenging time in our Nation's history, and he did an outstanding job. Prior to becoming a Congressional Fellow, Colonel King had a long and distinguished career in the Army. After graduating from Georgia State University in 1985, he attended the United States Army Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant. After his initial assignment as a Second Lieutenant, he was selected to attend Flight School at Fort Rucker, Alabama, and was the Honor Graduate of his class. Following flight school in 1988, Colonel King served in many command and staff positions worldwide. He served in Korea where he flew helicopter missions in and out of the DMZ. Later he served in Germany where he flew aerial reconnaissance missions along the former East German border, and directly contributed to our Nation's Cold War victory. Upon return from Germany, Colonel King served at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Georgia and supported Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti, and flew reconnaissance missions against Cuba. In 1995 Colonel King was assigned to the Army's Operational Support Airlift Command where he served in numerous leadership positions coordinating operations and training for over 80 subordinate units throughout the globe, and orchestrating uninterrupted airlift support for Theater Commanders in Saudi Arabia and Bosnia. He was then selected for C-20 Gulfstream jet training in Savannah, Georgia, before taking Command of the Army's elite jet detachment in Hawaii. While in command, Colonel King successfully managed a complex split-based operation, providing Humanitarian support in East Timor, while simultaneously providing worldwide airlift support to senior military and civilian leaders throughout Pacific Command (PACOM). Following his command in the Pacific, Colonel King returned to Washington where he served as an aviation staff officer, and helped develop the Army's fixed-wing doctrine and future cargo airplane requirements. Colonel King was then selected for the Army Congressional Fellowship Program where he served as my Military Legislative Assistant. Following his Fellowship, Colonel King served as the Deputy Chief of Legislative Liaison at National Guard Bureau, and then as Deputy Chief for Reserve Affairs at Army Congressional Liaison in the Pentagon. During his time as a Congressional Legislative Liaison, Colonel King provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to both the Army and the Congress. Jim's counsel and support were invaluable to Army leaders and Members of Congress as they considered the impact of their decisions on these important issues, and it is my privilege to recognize his many contributions. I commend his superb service to the United States Army and our great Nation. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Jim King, his wife Cindy, and his entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contributions that they have made throughout his honorable military service. I congratulate Colonel Jim King on completing an exceptional and extremely successful military career, and wish him blessings and success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, you know, one of the questions that I never hear asked and certainly don't hear answered by those who want to pull out of Iraq, like Harry Reid, who says the war is already lost, I have a question for him and others who say that the war is lost. As soon as America pulls out, the people like al Maliki, or Deputy Prime Minister Saleh, who was here in the Capitol last week, it would be a death sentence to them. All those folks who stepped forward who bought into the American and international concept of freedom and self- government and democracy, they will be executed. Now, what are we going to do? Are we going to give amnesty to political refugees, 50,000, 100,000? Maybe those on the left have an estimate of how many people we would open our border to. But I can say this: There is no question about it, these folks who stepped forward to try to build a new government will be executed. Their children will be executed. Their spouses will be executed. Their grandparents will be executed. So inevitably we will open up the borders to them as political refugees. My question is, how many of those will we let in, and can we do that now on a bipartisan basis?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize Bill Golden, an outstanding Georgian who has dedicated his life to the betterment of society through his involvement in higher education and public service. Bill has been a friend and ally in working towards a brighter future for my constituents and the people of Georgia. For the past sixteen years, Bill has served as the Director of Governmental Relations for the University of Georgia in Statesboro, Georgia. During most of this time, he also served as Georgia Southern University's Foundation President as well as the Director of Development. During his tenure there, Bill helped obtain over both public and private funding for many initiatives and spearheaded a government relations program between the university and Georgia's congressional delegation. Before coming to Georgia Southern University, Bill worked at the University of Georgia's Cooperative Extension Service, providing administrative support for the development and implementation of a statewide program in international trade and development and provided leadership for all counties in Georgia. He also served as an Assistant County Agent for Twiggs County, Georgia and worked to improve the county's 4-H and youth program. In addition, Bill aided in the development of the consulting firm Economark, Inc. which was developed to provide technical assistance in the area of economic and community development. Bill's extensive leadership ability has also translated into his community involvement. For instance, he has served as the Director for Bulloch County Chamber of Commerce, President of the Alumni Society for Middle Georgia College, and chair of the 13-State Advisory Committee for the Southern Rural Development Center. He has also served as President and Board Member of the Certified Public Managers Association, a member of the Board of Directors of Georgia Industrial Developers Association, and the Vice President, representing the first congressional district, Board of Managers for The University of Georgia Alumni Society. In light of Bill's outstanding record of commitment to others and dedication to excellence, it is with great pleasure that I rise in his honor. As Bill enters retirement I wish him continued happiness and success.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize Walter Parker an outstanding Georgian and statesman. Walter has long been recognized by the citizens of Tybee Island and Chatham County for the vital role that he has played in community leadership and his deep personal commitment to the welfare of the residents of Tybee Island. This outstanding public servant loyally served as Mayor of Tybee Island for 16 years and contributed enormously to the beautification and preservation of the island and to the refurbishment of the island's endangered beaches. As demonstration of his commitment to Tybee Island, Walter Parker was actively involved in many beach revitalization programs affecting the area and he also appointed the first Tybee Beautification Commission. Walter served as a leading advocate for state-wide support for the rebuilding of the Tybee Island Pier and Pavilion and initiated a massive cleanup and repair project dedicated to Tybee's municipal buildings. His tireless efforts resulted in a new spirit of community in preparation for Tybee's 1987 Centennial. Walter's commitment to the residents of Tybee Island is further demonstrated by his service on and involvement with many local, state, and national associations, boards and committees affecting the development of the city, including the Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce and Governor's Comprehensive Plan for Georgia's Coasts. As Mayor of Tybee Island he demanded excellence in public service from the city's vital service agencies. Walter's hard work and visionary spirit provided a framework upon which future generations could build and helped to preserve a strategic area of the State of Georgia for all to enjoy. It has been my pleasure working with Walter for many years for the betterment of our common constituency and for all those who know and love Tybee. Throughout our friendship, Walter has proven to be an efficient, effective, unselfish, and dedicated public servant to his community and the citizens of this state. I extend to him my most sincere best wishes for continued success and happiness.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate tonight, I am reminded of my old alley cat, Hercules. When I was growing up in Athens, Georgia, I had a mean, tough cat. He was an alley cat who basically adopted me. You know, we humans don't really adopt cats. Athens, Georgia, kind of a hilly, foothills Appalachian town with ivy bank. In the ivy bank, we had lots of cute little chipmunks. Hercules, being tough and could be the bully, could be somewhat like the majority party in some respects in that he was the alpha cat of the neighborhood. He would catch chipmunks at will. He would usually kill them and eat them, dispensing of them quickly. But every now and then, and it is an interesting thing about cats, it is not unique to my cat, but he would catch a chipmunk and he would toy with it awhile. He would just play with it. You would think: Did he have a change of heart? Is he going to let this chipmunk go? No, he would just play with it awhile. Well, that is what is going on tonight. We are hearing a lot of discussion, a lot of administration bashing about how cruel the White House is and a lot of lamenting about the Republican Party, and a lot of talk about compassion for the farmers and the rural communities and schools. There has been talk about the horrors of fire, drought and windstorm. And yet as we look at the rule that is governing this bill, which would be known as H. Res. 387 in the House Calendar No. 59, introduced by Ms. Slaughter, of New York, if we turn to page 3, section 4, we read the fine print. And it says: ``Sec. 4.(a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2206, the Clerk shall-- ``(1) await the disposition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207; ``(2) add the respective texts of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 2206; ``(3) confirm the title of H.R. 2206 to reflect the addition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, to the engrossment,'' which as the Speaker knows and followed very closely, what this means is this is Hercules toying with the chipmunk. It means there is not a disaster bill at all. It just means the majority party is toying with a disaster bill, because what happens, this goes right back to the President attached to the war funding bill. Here is my point, Mr. Speaker. If all these things are true, why is the majority party toying with a disaster? We are right back where we started from. We have just jumped out from the war funding bill only temporarily for I guess some purpose of voting here, and I understand politics, you can't remove that from the House of Representatives, but the reality is we are toying with a disaster bill because we already know two things: All the gobbledygook on page 4 that the Clerk shall do means this bill gets rejoined with the military funding bill. That is a fact. Number two, the President has already said he is going to veto the military funding bill, and one of the reasons is because of the extracurricular, nonmilitary items that are being added to it. So what I would say to Hercules, if you were worried about that little old chipmunk, you really would let it go. And I would say to the majority party, if you really were sincere about disaster relief, you would separate it from this rule, this H. Res. 367 introduced by Ms. Slaughter of New York and say, you know, we are going to have an up-or- down vote on a straight, freestanding separate disaster bill so that the farmers and ranchers and people out west can get the relief that we have heard over and over again on a bipartisan basis that they need so badly.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman. We just heard from the majority leader that this bill fully funds the troops. He is correct, it fully funds the troops; but it doesn't freely fund the troops. It is like giving a soldier a brand-new uniform and then shackling his foot to an anvil. And that anvil, Mr. Speaker, is politics. Our soldiers fight wars. They cannot take care of Iraqi politics. And yet this bill puts 17 different stipulations on that funding for our soldiers, to say that if these aren't taken care of, then you lose your funding. So it is not fully funding them, because it doesn't freely fund them. We went to Iraq. We made some mistakes. We all on a bipartisan basis, from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton to George Bush, thought there were WMDs over there. There were not. We also thought that once they were liberated, that because of American presence and ingenuity and Saddam Hussein being deposed, that democracy would rise from the ashes. It obviously did not, much to the disappointment of everybody in the world community. And I can say this as a member of the Defense Committee, we have had 4 years of almost ``happy talk'' from representatives of the Pentagon. It has been very disappointing. Representatives not of defense as much as from the political side of things. But I know one thing that is true: since the surge, there has been a glimmer of hope that we have rounded a corner. But I want to say this: it is very important that Members understand that failure in Iraq means that it devolves into a civil war. It means that perhaps it emerges as an anti-Western nation state of terrorists with their hands on the second largest oil reserve in the world, and surely those revenues will not be spent promoting democracy around the globe. It would also mean a decline in U.S. credibility, because if we lose, as the Senate Democrat majority leader Harry Reid has said, who wins? Well, al Qaeda wins. The nation isn't going to just quietly go on about their business. It is imperative for us to support the Petraeus plan and vote this bill down.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's just say that the critics of the war, and I don't mean the Members of the House, but the critics in the general public who often say ``Bush lied'' and put up posters to that effect and they bring in Halliburton and Blackwater and bumper stickers that say ``No War for Oil,'' let's say all that is true, absolutely true, that everything was a trick to get us there, and just say we can agree with that, and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry never made the statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, they did make those statements. But if all that was the case, regardless, we are there and we are there now. I met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq today, and he said, in fact, the surge is working. And maybe he has a view that might be suspect by some. But I have also spent a lot of time this week looking at a report of indexes in Iraq put out by the Brookings Institute, which, as you know, is left of center. But they track the number of civilian deaths, the number of IED attacks. They track the number of newspapers and radios, economic and political progress. They track the benchmarks, revenue sharing, oil sharing, and elections and so forth. And in that there is a glimmer of hope that is important to know that there is some progress that is being made. But I think between the Brookings Institute and the Prime Minister's report, there is a very bleak picture; but it is a picture nonetheless that progress is being made. If you pass this legislation today, you wouldn't just erode that progress. You would sign a death sentence to people like this Prime Minister and his family. Now, I agree that the Republican Party probably lost the majority in the House because of the war as much as anything else, but for us that is just politics. It is a political death. For the people over there that we are helping, this is real death. What would happen to this Deputy Prime Minister if we pulled out, and what would happen to all the other Iraqis who have been there trying to take a step forward as Sunnis, as Shiites, as Kurds, trying to work together in a cooperative agreement? Do the proponents of this bill believe that Iraq would suddenly say to them, Okay, you all can go home; we are going to switch governments? If this passed, there would be more chaos and a civil war that we have never seen before in the Middle East, and it would spill over to other countries in the Middle East. One of the things the Prime Minister said that Americans have failed to understand is there is a cultural shift going on in the Middle East right now, and it is not unique to Iraq, and that is that al Qaeda is becoming a mainstream group. Al Qaeda and an Islamic radical fundamentalist movement with sights on the West is growing. If we withdraw from Iraq, it is victory to them. A defeat means it is not just going to stay in Iraq, but the momentum probably would go to Israel next. It would probably encourage the Iranians to get nuclear. Saudi Arabia would follow suit. They would need to have nuclear weapons, and Jordan. The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Middle East would happen. The previous speaker said the troops did win the war. I agree. But we have not finished the war. We should vote this down and give Petraeus time, which is very much needed.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to sustain this veto today. I think it's the right thing to do, because I think we need to go back to the drawing board on this. Number one, the President does have the constitutionally defined duty to fight wars, to direct the militia, particularly in a time of war, and I think that we are getting into a position where we have a lot of folks on Capitol Hill, perhaps as high as 535 of us, who think we can run the war more than the Commander in Chief. I think we have to recognize that constitutionally the President has to do that. I think the President really has to veto this bill. It's as much for the preservation of the office as it is for his own personal views today. I think, secondly, while the benchmarks themselves make sense, and there is a lot of bipartisan agreement on the benchmarks, there is also great division as to can these benchmarks be achieved by the dates outlined in the bill. One of the things General Petraeus said to Congress last week is that the new Government of Iraq, and keep in mind, this is the fourth election that they have had and the first permanent government, but one of the things they need, as much as anything, is our push. This bill serves to push them. But it also needs our assurance, our assurance that we will be with them through this process. If you pointed out in 1870 would America be in a position to pass major civil rights legislation, we would not be at that point. The Government of Iraq might not be ready to bring in all the Baathists or to the level in which we would like to see it done by July or by October, and so I think that we have to give them a little more assurance that we're going to push you, but we're not going to pull the rug out from under you. I think that we, on this committee, the defense committee, the Appropriations Committee, which historically is known for getting things done at the end of the day, often have friends say to me, as a Republican, but I often have the question asked to me, we know you're a Republican, and we know you can be partisan, but do you do things bipartisanly? I am always proud to say, you know, the number one committee that I serve on, which I also think is the number one committee in the House, is a very bipartisan committee. Now, we will debate things, gun control, abortion, things, always are putting riders, environmental stuff, on our bill. Yet we clash about it in committee time and time again on ideological, principle-based positions. Yet at the end of the day, we know that the bill has to be passed, because if you don't get the appropriations train to the station, the government shuts down. I think at this point, the Appropriations Committee can go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is still based in principle that both sides can respect. But it does put the troops forward, as we do have strong bipartisan basis to want to do right now, but it would also take care of some of the politics of Iraq and the diplomacy. For that reason, I think we have to vote to sustain the veto.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said, ``The United States of America always does the right thing after it has exhausted all the other alternatives.'' And what we are doing here tonight, through the Democrat Party, is exhausting all the other alternatives. This bill is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, the Democrat leadership promised to cut out the pork and nondefense spending and give us a clean bill. But this bill contains minimum wage legislation, children's health care appropriations, $31 million for milk subsidies, $460 million for food aid, much of that not even going to the Middle East, $40 million for grain storage, $37 million for new computers for the FSA in Kansas City, $4 million for the Office of Women's Health, and $15 million for livestock subsidies. What does this have to do with Iraq? Not a thing. And yet some of this stuff may have a lot of merit and get bipartisan support. But why not bring it up on the proper pieces of legislation, not on a military aid bill? It's interesting, one of the Democrat Senators actually justified the nonmilitary spending saying, ``But the Republicans did it.'' And I agree with her. She's right. We did it. And that's why we are in the minority. The American people are tired of these kind of shenanigans. Let's pull these items out and have a debate on their own merits, not on the backs of soldiers in Iraq. Let's talk about Iraq. The Constitution, article I, section 2, says, and I quote, ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.'' In other words, the President, as Commander in Chief, runs wars, not 535 arm chair generals on Capitol Hill. But this legislation, or surrender document, usurps the President's constitutional prerogative. For this reason alone we should reject it. And finally, let's talk about the gist of this surrender. Putting a timeline on a war is great if the enemy agrees with it. But for some reason, they never do. Never in the history of war has a country won by announcing their surrender date to the world. It's odd, it's reckless, and it won't work. We should not micromanage this war. We should do as Winston Churchill said and do the right thing. And I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, today I rise in celebration of the 100th anniversary of Register Baptist Church. Originally organized in 1906 as the Missionary Baptist Church of Register, Register Baptist Church was officially constituted and accepted into the Bullock County Baptist Association in 1907. Although the first church building was destroyed by fire in 1956, the church rebuilt and dedicated the new building on June 21, 1959. Later expansions included a social hall and education building. Register Baptist Church has brought joy, laughter, support, and glory to the town of Register for 100 years--may God bless the future years for Register Baptist Church.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, in 2004, the United States of America spent $103 billion buying oil from non-democratic countries, such countries as Venezuela, as Iran, as Russia, and even ones who are our allies like Saudi Arabia, where some of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorist groups. We are funding both sides in the war on terrorism. It is a national security issue. We have to get off Middle East oil, and we need to reduce our oil dependency. We import 60 percent of our oil today. Congressman Eliot Engel and I have introduced H.R. 670. The goal of it is to reduce our oil consumption by 20 percent in 20 years. It has overwhelming bipartisan support, both in the House and the Senate. Now, if you don't buy that, there is another reason to focus on this, and it has to do with your pocketbook. Just think about the flexibility that we have out there in fuel choices, from ethanol to biodiesel to battery operated cars. Madam Speaker, we need to move in this direction. I recommend H.R. 670 to my colleagues and hope they will cosponsor it with me.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to the bill. I want to say this: We have had a lot of good, sincere debates in the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, but one of the things that, in our honest disagreement about, that we have not talked about as much is the effects that the surge has already had. I wanted to bring up some statistics. The 4 weeks prior to the surge which began on February 15, we had 1,440 civilian deaths; since that time, 265. That is a reduction of about 500 percent. In terms of bombings, prior to the surge, we had 163. Then from February to March, it is down to 102. Similar with car bombings, down 35 percent from 56 to 36. The surge is already showing a significant impact. Two-thirds of the Iraqis polled by a British polling firm, 5,000 people which were sampled, the largest poll in the history of Iraq, two-thirds of the people say they are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. Seventy-three percent say they are not in a civil war. Al-Maliki, the Prime Minister's approval rating has gone from 29 percent in September to 49 percent now. We are making progress. We are not defending the status quo. We are changing the course, and the Petraeus plan needs to be given time to work, and that is very, very important. The second point that I want to make is there are so many extracurricular things in the $23 billion in spending that have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Now, I serve on the Ag Committee, and I want to mention some of those. There is a $100 million increase in the PL-480 program, but there is not a single word of it in the report as to why this is justified, why this is considered an emergency, $100 million. Secondly, we have $25 million in there for spinach recall. The USDA did what they were supposed to do, but I want you to know you are setting a precedent for recall. We are not in the product compensation business on recalls. Finally, we have $5 million in the bill because of a Canadian fish import issue. All of these things are good, debatable topics, but they do not belong in an emergency appropriation bill. I think they should come back through the committee process on regular order where we can have a good debate and look at them on a separate piece of legislation. While some of the provisions I support, such as the peanut storage and handling provision and some type of agriculture disaster assistance, this bill is not the appropriate place for them to be considered. Title II-P.L. 480 Grants--The bill contains $100,000,000 above the President's request for Title II-P.L. 480 Grants. There is not a single word of explanation in the report as to what or where the additional funds are to be used for. The President's request included $350,000,000 of which approximately $150,000,000 would go to Sudan and for populations in Chad affected by the violence in Darfur; $30,000,000 for Afghanistan; $95,000,000 for Southern Africa; and $75,000,000 for the Horn of Africa. Just last month the Congress included $1,215 billion for this program in the Joint Resolution to fund this program for the remainder of fiscal year 2007. The bill provides $140,000,000 in additional relief for loses related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of which $25,000,000 would go to provide additional compensation to livestock producers and $100,000,000 would go to provide additional compensation for citrus producers--it appears that these additional funds are included in the bill only for the reason of doubling the $80,000 payment that livestock and citrus producers have already received, taking their payments up to $160,000. The need for agriculture disaster assistance has been debated for the last several months. While disaster assistance is clearly needed in some areas of the country, this bill provides $25 million for spinach producers who had losses due to a nationwide spinach recall last fall. The FDA did what is was supposed to do, and initiated the recall to protect consumers. This assistance is unprecedented, and there will be pressure put on this Committee to compensate producers whenever other food products are recalled. Can you imagine the cost if we get in the business of compensating producers for losses that they incur because of food recalls? The latest list of some of the food recalls from FDA and USDA include: bread; peanut butter; corn chips; olives; oysters; milk; fresh cut fruit; summer sausage; ground beef; and the list goes on. The reason foods were recalled is because they presented a health risk to the public, and the FDA or the USDA did what they were supposed to do. The bill includes $5,000,000 for compensation to aquaculture operations who may have incurred a loss due to a restriction on imports from certain fish from Canada. The emergency order, put on by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, on these fish from Canada was due to outbreaks or potential outbreaks of a destructive pathogen responsible for several large-scale fish deaths in the Great Lakes region--the reason APHIS put the order in place was to protect aquaculture in the Great Lakes states, and somehow $5,000,000 makes it into this bill to compensate for possible losses without any justification. Where did this number come from? Finally, there are no funds for USDA to administer any of the disaster assistance provisions in the bill that total nearly $4,500,000,000. Members are already reacting to proposed FSA office closures that are occurring all over the country. This will only exacerbate the problem. iraqi government progress According to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, over the last 30 days they have seen important developments in the history of Iraq. The Iraqi government has taken steps to improve security, governance, economic development and economic opportunities. Iraq's Prime Minister is actively leading the latest plan in Baghdad. Prime Minister Maliki created six committees to oversee the non-security pieces of the Baghdad plan, with oversight of economic development, essential services, communications, community outreach and related functions. Prime Minister Maliki's first trip to Anbar Province was a clear gesture and attempt to involve Sunni tribal sheiks into the government. Anbar's tribal sheiks are switching allegiances away from the insurgents and towards the government of Iraq. The tribal sheikhs have started providing police and army recruits to support stability in the region. At the end of February, the Iraqi parliament's Council of Ministers passed a hydrocarbon law that outlines the equitable sharing of Iraq's oil wealth. The Iraqi government hosted the Neighbors' Conference, the first international conference in Baghdad since 1990. The conference ended with regional and international partners pledging to fight terrorism and to enhance security in support of the goal of peace and security for the people of Iraq. Iran and Syria along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council attended the conference. military progress SecDef stated (Mar 21) the deployment of Iraqi troops into Baghdad is right on schedule--10 brigades total. Operational strength of the Iraqi Brigades in Baghdad has vastly improved. First Brigade reported at 61 percent; Second came in at 65 percent; and the third came in at 85 percent. Other brigades on their way are reporting in the high 90s to more than 100 percent strength. The problem was not related to fighting, but rather an issue with getting pay to families. Iraq does not have a financial system that provides for electronic transfer of monies--it is a cash transaction society. The Iraqi Government found that troops were trying to take money to their families and that is the reason they were absent. They fixed the problem by paying deploying forces a bonus upfront so they could leave money with their families and not have to worry about them. Overall, violence directed against Iraqi Civilians is down about one-third and murders/assassinations are down 50 percent. Civilian deaths down more than 500 percent: mid-Feb to mid- March, 265; previous four weeks, 1,440. Bombings down nearly 40 percent: mid-Feb to mid-March, 102; previous 4 weeks, 163. Car bombs down nearly 35 percent: mid-Feb to mid-March, 36; previous 4 weeks, 56. notes from secdef's talk at army caucus--mar 22 Active Army has met every retention and recruiting goal since 9/11 Need to grow Army and we're doing so by 7,000 a year Vital to meet Active Army's goal of 1 year deployed and 2 years home; Guard/Reserve goal is 1 year deployed and 5 years home Need to include Guard and Reserve in all of our plans Modernization and putting them in Joint billets We have programmed $46.4B for reset in FY 07/08 Modernization is also required--started $56B short Need the FY07 Sup by April or we will have to take Draconian measures and begin to reprogram money, impacting all facets of the Army Need $2B for BRAC this year and stated that we need to expedite the construction of the medical facility on Ft Belvoir and make Bethesda the premier medical facility commonly asked question iraq Q: What is your view of the timetables and provisions that have been attached to the FY07 Supplemental? A: It's important to elevate the level of debate. . . . question is how we incentiveize the Iraqi government. But, specific dates and strict conditionally would make it impossible for commanders to complete the mission. Q: Do you think the operations in Iraq will be over on October 1? A: Decisions need to be based by conditions on the ground. Setting a date tells your adversary all he has to do is wait. I think debate on the hill has been helpful; there is no military solution, it has to be a political solution and we are providing them the time they need. Q: How is the deployment of Iraqi troops going? We have heard they are reporting at low strength rates? A: In Afghanistan, there are about 12 financial centers that enable movement of money. Iraq has no such system yet, so troops have to take cash home to their families. First Brigades came in around 60 percent but other brigades are reporting in the high 90s to more than 100 percent strength. The problem was not related to fighting, but rather an issue with getting pay to families--troops were trying to take money to their families and that is the reason they were absent. They fixed the problem by paying deploying forces a bonus upfront so they could leave money with their families and not have to worry about them. Q: Are we neglecting Afghanistan? A: After I visited Afghanistan, I made the decision to extend the deployment of one Brigade and move the other Brigade in. We will be adding 3,400 trainers and overall about 6-7,000 soldiers. Britain and Australia are also providing more troops as we prepare for a Taliban offensive this spring. We think they may make a run at Khandahar and we want to hit them hard.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on the debate which we have just temporarily postponed until tomorrow morning on the supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq war, and I wanted to start off by reiterating the statement made by Mr. Shadegg of Arizona in which he said he knew of no point in history where a country at war declared an end date for when they would be getting out of that war, the point being that most countries fight wars until the war is finished, based on the war situation, and not based on a calendar and an arbitrary date at that. I think that is very important as we have this vote tomorrow because we are, in fact, hurting our troops if we make the announcement right now to the enemy that by March of 2008 we will be leaving. We know particularly in the Middle East and in Iraq that in cities such as Tikrit and Fallujah, as we have been there the last 3 or 4 years, that whenever the enemy wants to, it can lay low and wait till our troop situation or troop level shifts, and then they come out of the woodwork. I think if we do announce that we are going to be gone in March 2008, no matter what happens on the field of battle, then that enemy is going to use that same tactic to just wait until the Americans are out of town. If we do leave that country before the job is done, then what happens, Mr. Speaker, is it could cause chaos. A civil war could erupt, and a lot of people say, well, I do not care if a civil war erupts. But how do you know it is going to stay in the boundaries of Iraq? Why would not the Shiites in Iran, for example, get involved in it? We already know they are getting involved in supplying the Shiites in Iraq with things. We do not know what will happen in that volatile area. What happens to our ally Israel? We know that the Arab countries want to wipe Israel off the map. Are we doing Israel any favors if we abruptly withdraw and arbitrarily withdraw from Iraq? And what happens to the oil reserves? I know it is interesting, everybody likes to say no war for oil, but the reality is you cannot fight a war without oil, and you cannot run our economy without oil, and petrodollars can stir up a lot of trouble around the globe. Just ask Hugo Chavez in Venezuela what he has done with his petrodollars, street money, and here we would be turning over the second or third largest oil reserves in the world over to a terrorist anti-American state. Think about this for a minute in that context. America drilling and tapping into all the reserves that we have, we control 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We use 25 percent. We import 60 percent. If you wanted to declare war on America, you would look at our oil supply, as countries have always looked at the energy or food supply of any country that they have planned to invade. I want to say this. I represent Fort Stewart. This week the 3rd Infantry Division starts on its third deployment to Iraq. General Lynch, the commanding general, just left on Tuesday. But back in Hinesville, Georgia, there are 318 memorial trees that have been planted in memory of 3rd Infantry soldiers who have lost their life in Iraq. I have gone to some of the ceremonies. It is a sad thing, but even as you leave the field, the memorial field, soldiers say, we want to complete this job. I have visited soldiers in the hospitals in Baghdad and at Walter Reed and in Ramstein, Germany, in Landstuhl, and they all say they want to go back and finish the job. But I do not want to tell you that I can speak for the troops because there is thousands of them, and I always resent when people come here and say this is what the troops want, because the troops are just like the rest of America, we want a lot of things, and America is divided on this. But I want to say to the Democrats, I think that you have done the right thing. This war has needed more oversight. I believe we as Republicans were remiss in not having more oversight. I think putting up goals in the form of what we would like the Iraqi Government to do, I think that that is fitting and proper, but I think to have hard and fast deadlines is unreasonable. We, in this over 200-year constitutional government, cannot do things that we should do. Last year, for example, we were not able to pass a budget. We did not pass all of our appropriation bills. The important thing is the Republican Party, certainly as the majority party, we are guilty, but the point is we could not even do that in our own government. How do we expect the Iraqis to do it by an arbitrary date set? So I recommend that we recommit this bill, hammer out some of the differences, and then bring it back to the floor in a different and improved product. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.