Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Thanks.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want the record to show that Mr. Sullivan has four kids and you commented that you have six kids. Are you saying that he does not have a commitment? Is that is what is going on here? The rest of us are getting by with one or two kids. Actually, I have four. But I wanted to say you two families are doing your share for the economy.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit to the Record an article by the writer, actor, economist and lawyer, Ben Stein. This article, titled ``Greetings from Rancho Mirage'', expresses support and encouragement to our many hardworking and dedicated troops abroad: Greetings From Rancho Mirage--by Ben Stein Dear Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, National Guard, Reservists, in Iraq, in the Middle East theater, in Afghanistan, in the area near Afghanistan, in any base anywhere in the world, and your families: Let me tell you about why you guys own about 90 percent of the backbone in the whole world right now and should be happy with yourselves and proud of whom you are. It was a dazzlingly hot day here in Rancho Mirage today. I did small errands like going to the bank to pay my mortgage, finding a new bed at a price I can afford, practicing driving with my new 5 wood, paying bills for about two hours. I spoke for a long time to a woman who is going through a nasty child custody fight. I got e-mails from a woman who was fired today from her job for not paying attention. I read about multi- billion-dollar mergers in Europe, Asia, and the Mideast. I noticed how overweight I am, for the millionth time. In other words, I did a lot of nothing. Like every other American who is not in the armed forces family, I basically just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic in my trivial, self-important, meaningless way. Above all, I talked to a friend of more than forty-three years who told me he thought his life had no meaning because all he did was count his money. And, friends in the armed forces, this is the story of all of America today. We are doing nothing but treading water while you guys carry on the life or death struggle against worldwide militant Islamic terrorism. Our lives are about nothing: paying bills, going to humdrum jobs, waiting until we can go to sleep and then do it all again. Our most vivid issues are trivia compared with what you do every day, every minute, every second. Oprah Winfrey talks a lot about ``meaning'' in life. For her, ``meaning'' is dieting and then having her photo on the cover of her magazine every single month (surely a new world record for egomania). This is not ``meaning.'' --Meaning is doing for others. --Meaning is risking your life for hers. --Meaning is putting your bodies and families' peace of mind on the line to defeat some of the most evil, sick killers the world has ever known. --Meaning is leaving the comfort of home to fight to make sure that there still will be a home for your family and for your nation and for free men and women everywhere. Look, soldiers and Marines and sailors and airmen and Coast Guardsmen, there are eight billion people in this world. The whole fate of this world turns on what you people, 1.4 million, more or less, do every day. The fate of mankind depends on what about 2/100 of one percent of the people in this world do every day and you are those people. And joining you is every policeman, fireman, and Emergency Medical Technician in the country, also holding back the tide of chaos. Do you know how important you are? Do you know how indispensable you are? Do you know how humbly grateful any of us who has a head on his shoulders is to you? Do you know that if you never do another thing in your lives, you will always still be heroes? That we could live without hollywood or Wall Street or the NFL, but we cannot live for a week without you? We are on our knees to you and we bless and pray for you every moment. And Oprah Winfrey, if she were a size two, would not have one millionth of your importance, and all of the Wall Street billionaires will never mean what the least of you do, and if Barry Bonds hits hundreds of home runs it would not mean as much as you going on one patrol or driving one truck to the Baghdad airport. You are everything to us, as we go through our little days, and you are in the prayers of the nation and of every decent man and woman on the planet. That's who you are and what you mean. I hope you know that. Love, Ben Stein.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about House Resolution or House bill 670, which is a bill called the DRIVE Act; that is, the Dependency Reduction through Innovative Vehicle and Energy Policy. It is a bill that Eliot Engel and I have cosponsored. It has almost an equal number of Democrats and Republican cosponsors, up to about 60. And its goal is to reduce your oil consumption by 20 percent in 20 years. What we did is sat down and said, how could we achieve that goal and do something for national security, something for the environment, and something for mom and dad back home and their pocketbook? So we set out to try to stay true to those goals. We put fourth four things in it. To change consumer habits, we have doubled the tax credit for purchase of hybrids, flex fuel vehicles, and biodiesel, anything that would drive on something besides gasoline. Secondly, we have sent a message to Detroit that we would like to see 80 percent of the cars made in 10 years be at least flex fuel so that Wall Street will also follow suit and invest in flex fuel vehicles and hybrids and ethanol, things like that. If Wall Street knows that the government is behind it and the market is going to be there, then the investment dollars will follow. Too often what happens when the price of gasoline goes up, everyone rushes out and looks at alternatives; then when the price of gasoline goes down, everybody forgets all about it. We want to have a permanent investment stream from Wall Street. That is why it is a good method when you follow what we did with air bags, the air bag model. Thirdly, we require the government to start scoring based on energy consumption. When the government goes out and buys fleets of vehicles, we want to know, are you buying innovative vehicles, flex fuels, hybrids and so forth. We believe it is important for the Federal Government to have a goal. One thing I point out, which is not in the bill; but we deliver on Saturday, mail which is 30 percent of the volume that you have Monday through Friday, but we use 100 percent of the fuel. So it would make sense if you are in the business place to quit delivering mail on Saturday. I understand that has some political ramifications, and thinking with our political minds instead of our business minds. I just say that is an example. Finally, we believe that a lot more research has to be done. But I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Toyota is already on their fourth-generation hybrid. Unfortunately, many of the Detroit American motor companies are not that far along. But there is a lot coming down the pike. The University of Georgia, for example is making ethanol out of sweet potatoes, left- over Coca Cola and watermelon. There are all kinds of ways to make ethanol in addition to using corn. These are the things that our bill does. You know, in Washington it is actually easy to agree to disagree. My friend, Mr. Miller and I, we have no problem disagreeing agreeably. But what we need to do is agree to agree, which is much harder. Because when Republicans and Democrats agree to agree, we make progress, and sometimes the interest groups that surround us from both parties really do not want that, because they are not as empowered as they are when we are fighting.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, in the Senate right now, there is a piece of nonbinding legislation that disapproves of the troop surge or the Bush Doctrine. Now, it is nonbinding. What I find offensive, when we have troops on the ground in combat, is you have a bunch of self-proclaimed moralist Senators saying that we should not do this, and so what they want is a nonbinding legislation. Well, if they really feel like this idea is a bad idea and it imperils Americans, then they should follow their conviction and introduce real legislation. After all, they do carry the impact of changing the law since they are the U.S. Senate. I think it is silly to have an extracurricular, intramural exercise. They should bring real legislation to the floor. I am hoping that Members of the House will do that. There are a lot of critics of the war in the House. Well, it is time to tone down the rhetoric and beef up the legislation, whether you want immediate withdrawal, phased-down withdrawal, a surge, maybe a bigger surge than the President. We should be having real conversations in Washington. The election is over.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am curious about this new day for the Democrat Party because in the budget that I have a little more control over or interest in, the Ag Committee, they have cut food stamps by $11 million. I want to make sure my Republican colleagues understand that. That is right. We just heard from the Democrat leader that it is a new day and the Democrats, on their first day of this new day, have cut food stamps $11 million. They have also, in this budget, cut conservation programs right and left. They cut, for example, the Equip Program. The Equip Program is a program designed to help farmers with conservation and watershed and water run off and nutrients going into streams. They cut it by $70 million. On the conservation operations account, which is an account that helps farmers create habitat for wildlife, they cut that by $72 million. It helps with surface water retention so that we can reduce the impact of drought on farmers. They have cut that, again, $72 million. It also helps with nutrient management. There is a small dams program that they cut by $74.2 million, which affects Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma. And, Mr. Speaker, I am reading out these States so that the Democrat Members from these States can realize that they are, a vote for this bill is a vote to cut their own dams program in their own States by $74 million. Now, we have also heard about energy independence. This account also cuts the biomass program in the USDA by $2 million. But don't think your taxpayers are going to get any of this money. Where does the money go? To the bureaucracy. The FDA, who only asked for a $20 million increase, gets $100 million under this omnibus bill.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Lewis, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I oppose the bill; and the reason why, Mr. Speaker, is I think it is very important for our constituents to understand. Yes, there was a mandate in November as there had been a growing mandate throughout the year to get rid of earmarks. Now when my constituents supported the President's call to get rid of $18 billion worth of earmarks, what they thought he meant was reducing spending $18 billion. They do not want earmarks eliminated for the sake of taking them out of the hands of elected people and putting them in the hands of non-elected bureaucrats, yet that is what this omnibus bill does. Now in the ag section, the total spending has gone from 100 to $150 billion down. That sounds like a good savings, some of it. You can argue, where did the savings come from? One thing that was eliminated, $70 million in environmental quality incentive program, $44 million for conservation security programs. These are programs that help farmers, and they have a cost share. It helps farmers plan on environmental repairs, keeping nutrients out of flowing into streams, safe environmental practices on dairies like building lagoons, things like that. The bill also eliminated $74 million in watershed and flood prevention, building small dams, and it eliminates $2 million from the USDA biomass program. Now at a time when we all want energy independence, eliminating the biomass program in the USDA doesn't make sense to me. Also it eliminates $11 million in food stamp funding for the employment and training portion of food stamps. All important things. But where does the money go? For one thing, it goes to the FDA bureaucrats. The FDA wanted about a $20 million increase. They get, under this bill, a $100 million increase, without a single committee hearing on it. Again, though, it is not just that the FDA is getting money. It is that the taxpayers aren't getting money. Earmarks have been eliminated, but the money does not go back to the taxpayers. It simply goes to the bureaucracy. And that is why I think we should recommit this bill because we can do a better job.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I think that there is a good part to the Democrat takeover of the House and the Senate, and that is that now the Democrats are at the table when we talk about Iraq. And there are many in this town who say failure is not an option. I think failure is an option. I think there would be disastrous consequences to that. The third largest oil-producing nation in the world would belong to terrorists. What would happen to the existing and fledgling Iraqi Government if you suddenly pulled our troops out of there? What kind of genocide would that bring? Those are things that have to be dealt with. But I think that it is good that now we can have a bipartisan approach that the critics of the administration and the policy are now inside the room actually making policy. With that spirit, I think that it is time to tone down the rhetoric and work on a solution that will be best for Iraq, for America, and for the international community. And I say this with sincerity now because I think there is a good opportunity, and we only will have it, I think, for a few short months because the Presidential elections are kicking in, lots of rhetoric is floating around, but I think we can work together and come up with some good policy.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak today about the debate on the war. And I have the honor of representing Fort Stewart, home of the Third Infantry Division, which is located in Hinesville and Savannah, Georgia. This month the Third Infantry will start its third deployment to Iraq. And as they go over there, certainly they know what is going on in Washington in terms of the debate. But I think it is real important that we don't send a signal to our men and women in harm's way that what they are doing is irrelevant, that we can't win, and that because Bush might be a President whose policies aren't perfect that we need to withdraw. In fact, I think what we should do is reaffirm on a bipartisan basis that we support the troops. We want to get them all the up-armored vehicles that they need, the Cougars, for example, blue tracking, the advanced night vision goggles. We should say on a bipartisan basis, we want to give them absolutely all the military hardware that they need to win the war. And then, in a separate debate, have the discussion of what an alternative is, where is the plan of the Bush critics and what is the price of pulling out. And I think we need to make that statement. And I am glad Sam Johnson is moving in that direction.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, there is one economic fact that doesn't belong to the Democrats or the Republicans. Facts work that way. And that is, that price in the long run is the cost of production, period. It is true with anything. What we are doing with this bill, should it pass, is we are increasing the cost of production, specifically, domestic production. We live in a world where, in 2004, we spent $103 billion buying oil from nondemocratic countries. Now, some of them might be your best friends. Saudi Arabia, for example. Others might be less than your best friends. Of course, I say that tongue in cheek. But Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, that is who you are buying your oil from today; and you are going to increase the cost of domestic production. It doesn't quite make sense, except for in the context of the last 2 weeks, the context of the transfer of power from Republican to Democrat. We were promised open government; we were promised open rules; we were promised the opportunity to add amendments and to have fair debates. And yet this bill, as has been the case with the five bills before it, did not even have a committee hearing. It is like giving a book report having not read the book. Sure, it is a power jam, and certainly the majority has the right to jam its power through on the minority. But in this case, wouldn't it have been more helpful to have a committee hearing so we could have gotten rid of what I would call the tuna fish clause? Now, we know what the tuna fish clause is. Right? That is where we heard over and over again on the minimum wage debate that increasing wages was good for everybody, good for the economy, good for the worker, particularly the poor worker. And then we read this insidious, surreptitious scheme to exempt American Samoa and the tuna worker factories. Sorry, Charlie, but only the best tuna workers are entitled to minimum wage, not the folks on American Samoa. Now, that is the tuna fish clause. Now, frankly, I think other States ought to have that option, too. We found out there was a tuna fish clause yesterday in the education bill; and that was that the title of the bill was to decrease the student loan interest rate down to 3.4 percent, but the tuna fish clause in it said that it was only applied for 6 months of the bill. How do you go back home and tell people you cut student loan rates in half when you only did it for 6 months? It is a tuna fish clause. How do you tell the American people that you are going to have open government, and yet your first six bills bypass the committee process? That is the tuna fish clause. Today the tuna fish clause is that our domestic oil production is low in terms of our consumption, and we are going to be increasing the cost of the production, which will be passed on to the American consumers. We do need alternative energy. We need it on a bipartisan basis. I would say to the majority, you missed a great opportunity to work on this.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, could the Speaker tell me why we are limiting 1-minutes to five per side, yet we are getting out today in the middle of the day at 2 o'clock? Mr. Speaker, I will accept that for an answer. I just wanted to ask the question and make sure that we understood that we are.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, the Democrat Party has just ended its 6 for 600 hours, or whatever they call it. I wish I had a clock at home that tracked hours the way the Democrats did. By that standard, I would be 25 years old, and probably look a lot better, as a matter of fact; more youthful. But I want to say this. The Democrats did this agenda based on kind of, you know, trite, older, more established, safer issues. There was no real reach for the sky here; no entitlement reform, no tax simplification, no energy independence. What they did also was cram down a bunch of things that bypassed the committee process, and I want to give a contrast with the Contract With America. The Contract With America was 24 pieces of legislation. The number of bills we had open to amendment was nine. The number of bills considered under a closed rule was only three. The numbers of bills considered under suspension of the rules was only two. The total number of Democrat amendments, 154, of which only 95 failed. Many, many Democrat amendments passed. I hope, as we go into your next 200 or 300 hours, that we can have a more participatory democracy.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As I sit here, I am reminded of the story we have all heard about the guy who goes on the $100 cruise. He sees an advertisement for a $100 cruise. Like all of us, especially a guy like me, I have never been on a cruise, he goes down to the dock real excited about it and he gives the man $100. The man pulls out a two-by-four, hits him over the head, puts him on an inner tube and pushes him into the water. And he is cruising along. After a while he wakes up. He bumps into another guy with an inner tube and he is rubbing his head. Finally, the first guy says to the other guy, ``Hey, do they serve drinks on this cruise?'' And the second guy says, ``Well, they didn't last year.'' Now, the point is, how vulnerable could you be to do this twice? How vulnerable would these students be to believe what they are hearing about an interest rate that, it is true, it does go to 3.4. It dips down to 3.4, and then it springs back up. I only wish the stock that I owned in whatever my savings account is would dip down like that and then go immediately back up the way the Democrat Party is. But this bill had no hearings. A broken promise right off the bat. We would have hearings, we would have amendments. There are no amendments, there are no hearings. What happens when you have no hearings and no amendments? You can get to only what can be called the tuna fish clause. We know what the tuna fish clause is. That is where there is something embarrassing stuck in a bill that nobody quite understands. And I think Mr. McKeon over and over again has pointed out what the tuna fish clause is in this, and that is that the 3.4 percent interest rate is only in effect for 6 months, from 2011 to 2012. Now, I want to explain to the folks who haven't been paying attention, when we passed the minimum wage bill the other day and we heard over and over again how it was going to help save the workers of America and how it was good for all, at the same time the very people who were telling us what a great bill it was had put in a scheme to exempt the tuna fish industry from American Samoa, the very people who are telling us this is great for all. So it can be called the tuna fish clause. We are going to look for the tuna fish clause over and over again. Now, one thing that we have not talked about is that universities have had a 35 percent inflation rate over the last 5 years. That is relevant because not everybody is going to go to college on a loan or on a scholarship, and so when you have a 35 percent inflation rate, you have got to say, well, what does that do to the rest of the student population. That is something the Republican Party and, frankly, the Democrat Party should focus on, what can we do to bring this under control. The second thing is, there has been a commitment on this. Frequently, you hear about a poll that is taken that says 90 percent of the people of America believe in clean air. Oh, my goodness, 90 percent. Please tell me about the 10 percent who do not believe in clean air. So when you hear the guy standing on the dock with the $100 cruise, that this is good for education, of course, it is good for education. Who does not want more kids to get a college education? Because our kids today are going to be competing against kids from Tokyo, and from Moscow and from Beijing. It is important in an international global economy that we have kids that are as competitive as possible, and that is why we have always worked on a bipartisan basis. I mean, think about this. In 1995, when the Republican Party took over the House, the Pell Grant money was $2,340. We increased it the next year to $2,470, and now it is at $4,050. We did not do that only with Republican votes. We did it with Republican leadership, but the Democrats were there with us. We think bipartisanship is very important. In addition to that, we have together worked on Perkins loans, on college work student loans, on supplemental education grants. It is very important that we as a bipartisan body come together on education just like national defense issues, because education no longer ends at the water line. It goes internationally. So when we hear over and over again that this bill will save a student $4,400 over the life of the loan, it is absolutely mathematically impossible, and maybe that is one thing we need more of, math education, so folks could tell a fraud when they see it. In order for you to save that kind of money, the 3.4 percent interest rate would have to stay in effect for years at a time, but as Mr. McKeon said over and over again, it is only in effect from July 2011 to January 2012. That is the tuna fish clause of this bill. If we had worked through committees on a bipartisan basis, regular order, hearings and amendments on the floor, we could get rid of the tuna fish clause in this, and we want to do that. I am the son of a college professor, the brother of a college professor. I am the only one in my family who only has an undergraduate degree. I believe in higher education. Who does not believe in higher education? But I also believe in truth in representation and in bipartisanship. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, well, it looks like the Democrat juggernaut is rolling along, or maybe it is more like the first steps of fledgling toddlers stumbling through their day. First was the embarrassment of saying we would have open and fair debates for all, and then the first rule, no amendments, no open rules, and no committee hearings, which of course led to the embarrassing ``Sorry, Charlie Tuna'' incident of exempting American Samoa from workmen's compensation. I have to ask my friends, why did y'all do that? What were you thinking? But I also want you to know I am on the side of American Samoa on this one. I don't think it is fair to go in there and beat them up and tell them how they should run their economy, tell them what is best for them and tell them that Washington knows best on central wage planning. Wait a minute, though. That is what we did to the other States, too. Well, as a matter of fact I don't think we should bring American Samoa into this. I think we should amend the bill, if you do decide to have a committee hearing, that is, and allow the other States to join American Samoa and set their own minimum wage. But then that would be decentralized planning.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, you know, it is time for the Democrat Party to lay out its plan for Iraq. I understand the echo chamber of liberalism is going to be teeing off on the President all week long. I understand that, because that is what has been going on for 6 months and, indeed, in some circles for a year. There are 65 Members, in fact, of the Get Out of Iraq Now Caucus, and I actually have a lot of respect for them because they have a vision, they have a plan. The plan is: get out of Iraq. Now there is no answer to the question: What happens then? What happens then when you have an American defeat internationally in the Middle East, when you turn over the third largest oil producing nation in the world to a terrorist state? What happens to the people over there who are pro-America or pro-democracy? They don't answer that question, and I understand that. But for the other Democrats who are so enthusiastically piling on the President right now, and certainly I want to say as a Republican it has not been going well and we do need a new change in direction, but I would say to the majority party, put your plan on the table.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this is a debate which so many of us feel passionately about on both sides. It is such a shame, though, that it was not allowed to go to committee. I hear over and over again how important this bill is and actually to both sides, proponents and opponents, yet no committee, no hearing, no amendments. It is a pity. I certainly hope that the Democrats do go back to their party's promise of last week and start opening things up. Now, having said that, I wanted to make two points, and then I am going to extend my remarks. But there is no Federal law against embryonic stem cell research right now. Many people seem to think that this will allow something to happen that it doesn't. The debate is more about what types of lines. Now, as you know, the President has approved research on 78 lines. Twenty-two of them are being used currently in Federal funding, and I have the list of where those 22 are, their locations, which I will submit to the Record.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I want to say this legislation gets an ``A'' in politics and a ``D- minus'' in economics; an ``A'' is politics most people aren't going to notice that the very people who are pushing it are the ones who voted against the Bush tax cuts for the low-income bracket, reducing it from 15 percent to 10 percent. It is going to be good politics because most people will overlook the fact that the majority of the Democrat Party are going to vote against affordable health care for the working poor. It is good politics because most people won't notice that the Democrats didn't have a committee meeting which would have given them an opportunity to parade out all of these workers who they have been saying over and over again depend on Congress for their salary and wages because apparently they cannot earn more on their own, only Congress themselves can increase this. It is going to be good politics for them because most people won't realize that, since 1997, in the last 9 years, that 29 States have increased the minimum wage, and that is a fact that keeps getting overlooked. And it is going to be good politics because most folks know that union wages are going to be linked into this, and it is going to increase the wage salary for the union workers who support them so dearly. But it is going to be bad economically. As I said, an ``A'' in politics and a ``D'' in economics because the reality is that most minimum-wage earners are part-time, and most are well above the poverty level. Most are teenage workers: 52 percent under 25; 40 percent have never had a job before. It is an entry level job. If the Democrat Party truly wanted to take on poverty, they would have to say, what is the relationship between marriage and the poverty level, and between hours worked and the poverty level. Because the truth of the matter is if people in poverty, if many of them would marry and many of them would work 40 hours a week, they would be out of poverty. It is not anything I claim to have the franchise on, the knowledge of, all of the information on, but it is an economic fact. I hope that we can have committee hearings on that and discuss that, because if we want to attack poverty, that is where we need to go.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. I find today a lot of questions, a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of half decent debate going on. I wonder, first of all, why we didn't bring this bill through committee. Certainly if it is a good idea, it would have been something worth debating and perhaps some amendments. But under the new ``open rule'' Democrat Party, I understand we can bypass the committee and not have any hearings or amendments. The next question is, why are so many people who were opposed to the Bush tax cut for the lower income going from 15 percent to 10 percent tax bracket, why are they now so compassionate to the poor? And I have to ask, also, why are you stopping at $7 an hour? If it is good for the economy and good for the workers, as we keep hearing over and over again, why do we stop at $7 an hour, this arbitrary number? Nobody can make a living at $14,000 a year. Why not go to $8 an hour, $9 an hour, $10, $20 an hour? Heck, if it is good for the economy, let us go to $50 an hour. And if we had a committee hearing, maybe we could have some answers on that. Question: If it is so good for the economy, why does the Congressional Budget Office rate it as a $5 to $7 billion unfunded mandate on our small businesses, which are the economic engines of the economy? How come the Hoover Institute estimates that it will actually get 20 percent of the minimum wage workers out of work because people will say you are not worth that much money? Those are questions that we don't have answers to. Another question that I have is we keep hearing that the minimum wage hasn't been increased in 9 years, when, in fact, since 1997, 29 States have increased their minimum wages. We do not hear about that because I guess we are against States' rights in any form around here. That seems to be a taboo kind of thing. But what is also interesting is that 85 percent of the people who make minimum wage are well above the poverty level. Why? Because 52 percent of the people on minimum wage are teenagers, 30 percent are part time, and 40 percent have never had a job before. In fact, if we want to take a real serious look at poverty, we need to look at the correlation between poverty and hours worked a week. The reality is so many people are working less than 40 hours a week. The second point, very important, is marriage. If you want to get a lot of the children who are in poverty out of poverty right now, get the mom and dad to marry each other. Now, that wasn't in the first 100-hour agenda. I understand. We are rolling out the moldy, oldie golden hits of Democrat thought. But let's get into poverty and let's have some real hearings.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, despite vastly overwhelming numbers, I rise to address the House, and I apparently represent the entire body on this side of the aisle. I want to say this to my Democrat friends, and I understand the vote here and I understand the politics of minimum wage, but why $7.50 an hour, $7.15, whatever it is? Why not $8? Why not $9? It is an arbitrary number anyhow. Maybe $15, maybe $20 an hour. It is an arbitrary number. If we are command and control, central government planning anyhow, why is $7 an hour sufficient? In 1980, 15 percent of the workers in America were on minimum wage. Today, it is 2.5 percent. Who are they? Fifty-two percent are teenagers. Thirty percent are part-timers. And 40 percent have never held a job before. Many studies show that when the minimum wage increases, small businesses who will be most affected actually decrease the number of jobs, thus hurting those whom we are supposed to be helping. I would say to you that the reason most jobs do not pay minimum wage anymore is because the economy has moved the central government planning of Congress and the thinking of 1938 which set the law in motion to begin with. With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate today.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to honor the memory of the late Kevin Brophy. Kevin was a remarkable young man who touched the lives of all those he met. Kevin Brophy was a native of Melbourne, Australia, who graduated from Memorial Day School in Savannah, GA. In his time at Memorial, Kevin averaged 28.4 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 12.4 assists per game setting a single season school record of 424 points. Kevin went on to attend the University of Georgia where, as a walk- on, to the 2005 Bulldogs men's basketball team he played in all 28 games of his freshman season and started in seven Southeastern Conference contests. Though he began his collegiate sports career as a walk-on, Kevin quickly earned an athletic scholarship before the start of his sophomore season. As a member of the Georgia Bulldogs basketball program, Kevin scored a season high of 19 points against the Vanderbilt University Commodores, nine of those coming in the last nine minutes. Kevin's attitude, maturity, and work ethic were contagious, spreading to all those with whom he came in contact. Tragically, Kevin's life ended July 20, 2006, near Greensboro, GA, just hours after he devoted his time to improving the basketball program at the Athens Boys and Girls Club. His death has left a community in mourning but his life has inspired us all.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise one premise that no one has talked about, and that is this blind belief in everything the 9/11 committee says, and apparently individual Members as well. The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group of good people, some who served in the House. They are intelligent people who have been involved in public policy, but I am not aware that they were top-notch CIA or FBI or intelligence community members. I don't know of them having risen up through the ranks of the intelligence circles or the antiterrorism circles that makes them absolutely experts on everything on what is now a 2\1/2\-year-old report. I wanted to bring that up because I think it is important when you consider that when the 9/11 Commission came out, this Congress on a bipartisan basis implemented 39 out of the 41 recommendations. We did not implement all the recommendations, but we had hearings on them and they were bipartisan and there was a lot of discussion, unlike what we have here today. What we have here today is a recommendation, a recommendation not made by the 9/11 Commission but, from what I am hearing, one Member wandering around the Hall said, Yeah, this is a good idea. Now, that is hardly the way to make a major step in the way we approach intelligence in the House. It doesn't make sense at all. This bill today has not had a hearing. The Rules Committee did not hear of any amendments that could or would be offered or debated. I think, frankly, the thing that is ironic, and I have got to say as I see over there many of my very good friends, many institutionalists, people who have great respect for the institution, you know that on intelligence we have generally been bipartisan here in the Capitol. Certainly there are times when intelligence like everything else devolves into partisanship, but generally speaking we have conducted this body in the wake of 9/11 itself in a bipartisan manner, and yet today we don't have that. We do not have those amendments which people could come together on. So I just wanted to raise that because, as I sit as an Appropriations Committee member on the Defense Subcommittee, and I sit there and I listen to so many people like Mr. Obey, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Young, the folks I would consider the sage folks in the back room who at the end of the day do the pragmatic thing and put the best interests of the Nation forward, in this particular case that has not been allowed to happen. So I find myself a little perplexed by this because it has not been thoroughly vetted, and I am going to vote ``no'' on it because of the process itself. Now, there are a lot of other issues that are important, and it is important to me that the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the Homeland Security, of the Rules Committee, of the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Judiciary Committee are all resoundingly against this. Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I have read and reviewed, and I submit for inclusion into the Record that has been written by them, and I think the points that they have raised are very, very important. 110th Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 9, 2007. Dear Republican Colleague: Today the House is scheduled to consider House Resolution 35, a resolution purporting to enhance intelligence oversight authority. We are writing to you to outline our strong concerns with the current version of the resolution and to ask you to join us in opposing this resolution. As a response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation to streamline intelligence oversight, Speaker Pelosi proposed the select panel on Intelligence oversight within the Appropriations Committee to consolidate intelligence oversight. Unfortunately, we believe this proposal is wholly inconsistent with any notion of a more streamlined and rigorous intelligence oversight process. In fact, we believe the proposal will make oversight more complex and less effective. The 9/11 Commission recommended creating a single committee with both authorizing and appropriating authority. The House of Representatives did not agree with this recommendation, and instead worked to ensure proper oversight by creating a new oversight subcommittee within the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and by improving coordination and cooperation between the authorization committees and the House Appropriation Committee. The new proposal undermines these efforts by adding a duplicative and seemingly powerless panel to the process. Instead of consolidating our oversight responsibilities, we will be diffusing them, making three entities within the House for oversight of the intelligence community instead of the current two. It is also apparent that the oversight parameters and responsibilities are not clearly defined. If this panel is supposed to be conducting oversight, it is unclear whether the panel will get into intelligence operations. We have worked hard to limit the unauthorized dissemination of highly classified and sensitive programs, and we are concerned about the practical implementation of the panel. Finally, if the proposed oversight panel is charged with reviewing and studying the entire intelligence community, why are the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees not represented on the panel? The 9/ 11 Commission specifically recommended members from the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committees also serve on the joint authorization appropriations committee. The purpose of the recommendation is to ensure adequate input and review by the appropriate authorization committees. If the purpose of the panel is too afford more aggressive oversight, why were these equities and jurisdictions overlooked? If this proposal had gone through the normal committee process, which House Rules Ranking Member Dreier requested, we would have had an opportunity to address these serious concerns through regular order. Given these serious concerns, we do not agree this would be a responsible revision of the current intelligence oversight structure. We respectfully request you join us in voting ``no'' on H. Res, 35. Sincerely, Rep. Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee; Rep. Duncan Hunter, Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee; Rep. Peter King, Ranking Member, Homeland Security Committee; Rep. David Dreier, Ranking Member, Rules Committee; Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Member, Intelligence Committee; Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, Ranking Member, Foreign Affairs Committee; Rep. Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee. But I have to say, this is just not the right step in terms of addressing the national security needs of our Nation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here, and I am glad that the Democrats are interested in fiscal discipline. That is a good thing. It is a good bipartisan debate. But there are three flaws in the Democrat PAYGO approach that I think are very important. Number one, this tax issue that just won't go away. You know, based on scoring and based on reality and based on fact, when Kennedy cut taxes, when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush cut taxes, revenues went up. Now we all know that scoring in this town counts a tax cut as a spending increase. How silly in the face of economic reality over the past 40 years. Maybe the Democrat Party could look at scoring and change that. I think that is something we were unable to do as the majority. It would be a good idea for you to pursue it. But you and I both know that revenues went up in 2005 14 percent, in 2006 11 percent, and it was because of the economic growth brought about by the 2003 Bush tax cuts. PAYGO ignores that. How silly. How disingenuous. Number two, I want to talk about entitlement reform. The big money, while I think we do need earmark reform and have supported it, but the big money, as we know, are in entitlements: 53 percent of the budget. The Democrats were getting a lot of good credit for what I would say is kind of a golden oldies agenda, bringing out no original ideas, minimum wage, stem cell and student loans. And I understand those are safe things. But it is kind of like starting out the World Series by bunting instead of trying to get on base with real serious hits. The reason why I submit that criticism is there is nothing in your agenda about immigration reform, Social Security reform, Medicare reform, the heavy-lifting ideas of entitlement, and PAYGO completely ignores those as well. Number three, the real world, where is the Senate on PAYGO? My friend from Florida may know, but isn't it possible that unless they are going to do PAYGO, it is a silly exercise. It is boilerplate. It looks good, but the truth is if the Senate is not on board, which they are not, we are wasting time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, at one time the United States of America overwhelmingly was an agrarian country, but today only 2 percent of the population are farmers. Yet those 2 percent feed all 100 percent of us and a great portion of the rest of the world as well. Now, when it comes to energy, however, we import 60 percent; yet America consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. We need, for the sake of national security, fuel independence. In 2004, we bought over $100 billion of oil from non-democratic countries, countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, countries that are not always with the United States on a lot of matters and particularly on their votes in the U.N. When we do this, we are funding both sides in the war on terrorism. We need to move towards alternatives: biofuel, ethanol, hydrogen. These technologies are already out there; we just need to have a national commitment to have fuel independence. I have proposed a bill, H.R. 4409, which is cosponsored by Mr. Engel of New York, that moves us in that direction in 20 years. I urge my colleagues to join us and take a good serious look at fuel independence.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and contributions of Pete Wheeler, the Georgia Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, who is being honored this Veterans Day as Georgia's ``Veteran of the Century.'' Pete Wheeler is an incredible person and a true friend to all those who have served in our country's armed forces. Pete Wheeler's dedication to public service and our veterans is deep- rooted. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1942 and served in the Army Infantry. He retired as a Brigadier General in the National Guard in 1978. After graduating from the University of Georgia, he began his career with the Georgia Department of Veterans Service In 1949, and has worked personally with the 11 U.S. Presidents and 11 Georgia Governors since then. In 1954, he was appointed Georgia Chairman, National Veterans Day Committee and he still serves in that capacity. He was appointed to the U.S. Veterans Advisory Commission by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. Upon his appointment in 1994, he served as chairman of the World War II Memorial Advisory Board for President Clinton and President George W. Bush. A true and faithful friend to veterans, Pete Wheeler has been an advocate of their causes for more than half a century. On a national level he is looked upon among the State Directors and Commissioners as the ``Dean of Veterans.'' He has been instrumental in many innovative programs to benefit veterans and their families, including starting the first ever ``State Supermarket of Veterans Benefits'' in 1966, a one- stop service for veterans and their families to gather information regarding Federal and State benefits to which they might be entitled. During his tenure, established two State veteran's cemeteries and played an influential part in the establishment of the GA National Cemetery in Cherokee County, Georgia, and the Annual Service Officer School was established. This workshop brings together veterans benefit counselors from field offices as well as leadership from the State's veterans groups and national offices involved in veteran's issues. This has been an annual event for 47 years. His awards include the Silver Helmet Award, presented by AMVETS; Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge George Washington Honor Medal; the American Legion Gold Honor Medal and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Silver Medal of Merit. Veterans and all Georgians are fortunate to have Pete Wheeler working for them. He is a model of civic pride and community service. Pete Wheeler has made an immeasurable contribution to our State, and our Nation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, as my friend Mr. Engel from New York knows, gas prices are coming down. I am glad about it. A friend of mine, a son, actually filled up last weekend for $1.89 a gallon. But Mr. Engel and I know that the pressure upon the gas supply brought about by new drivers in India and China and all over the world means increased demand with a very limited supply of oil. We have got to wean ourselves off of Middle East oil and foreign oil as much as possible. Mr. Engel and I have introduced H.R. 4409, which moves us toward alternative fuels. Ethanol, hydrogen, biomass, technologies that are already out there. We just need to invest more money and accelerate our commitment towards fuel independence. Imagine driving through a rural area, cornfields on both sides of you, with assurance that that is your next tank of gas. Would that not be great? This is something that we can work on as Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Engel and I have put the bill forward. We are glad to have a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans on it. I hope we can get it to the floor for a vote because I think it is extremely important.