Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor my friend, LTC Susan K. Riopel, a respected officer in the United States Army Reserve, as she retires after having distinguished herself by continuous meritorious performance during 23 years of dedicated service. LTC Susan Riopel was selected and served as one of the prestigious Army Congressional Fellows from August 1998 until November 1999, handling a wide range of responsibilities such as preparing input for committee hearings and conference mark-ups and conducting research and analysis, recommending sponsorship of bills, drafting speeches, talking points and press releases. Upon completion of her assignment as an Army Congressional Fellow, LTC Susan Riopel continued as a Legislative Liaison, for the Army Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison as well as the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve Legislative Liaison. LTC Susan Riopel has been an exemplary leader. Her efforts have brought a higher quality of life to the men and women in uniform who serve our country. She is, however, first and foremost, a loving and supportive wife to Frank, her husband, a caring and understanding mother to her children, Elizabeth and David. Mr. President, I therefore honor LTC Susan Riopel today for her outstanding contributions to the United States Army Reserve as well as our Nation. She is a visionary and a leader and a mentor, a beloved wife, and mother, and I am proud to call her my friend.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today marks the end of Public Housing Week in the State of Georgia. I would like to commend those who work hard every day to ensure that our fellow Georgians have safe and affordable housing. The following proclamation was issued at the Capitol building in Atlanta, Georgia last week, and I would like to submit it for the Record. Proclamation The Federal Public Housing Program was initiated under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 as part of the Nation's New Deal Initiative, and has provided housing for millions of Americans since the outset of this program. Georgia, being the first State in the Nation to construct Public Housing for its citizens under the Federal Public Housing Program, continues to be a leader of this industry and recognized across the country for its excellence in providing decent, safe, and affordable housing for Georgia's citizens. The Georgia Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development work in partnership to provide public housing for over 110,000 families in the State of Georgia, as well as local jobs, economic opportunity, family services, and neighborhood revitalization for the majority of Georgia cities through their local housing authorities. Governor Sonny Perdue of the State of Georgia proclaims September 19th through the 26th as Public Housing Week in Georgia. I encourage all citizens to express their appreciation for the commitment and the service of those in the Public Housing Industry within the State of Georgia.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Appling County, GA Recreation Department's 14 and Under Junior Boys All-Star team (Hunter Williams, Tate Carter, Joseph Livingston, Colby Griffin, Michael Norris, Todd Hagen, Kyle Hardwick, Ryne Powers, Tyler Avera, Zack Griffis, Ryan Taylor, Cale Turner, Scott Fariss, Kasey Kersey, Coach Jeff Williams, Coach Jay Powers) traveled to Fitzgerald, GA on July 12th to participate in the 2006 BGPA Junior Boys Class ``C'' State Tournament. The 4-day tournament was a double elimination tournament. The first game, Appling had to play Union County from District 7. Appling jumped on them quickly and ``Run-ruled'' them in five innings, with a 9 to 0 final score. That moved Appling on to play Thursday against Adel-Cook County from District 3. Appling played the whole game behind until the bottom of the seventh inning, when it tied the game up and forced it into extra innings. In the eighth inning, Appling scored one run to end the game. That moved Appling on to play for the undefeated game against Bowdon County from District 4 on Friday morning. Bowdon beat Appling in 2005 for the championship, but this time would be a different story. The game began with Appling scoring 1 run in the top of the first inning. Neither team scored in the second inning, and in the third inning, Appling scored 1 and held Bowdon scoreless. In the fourth inning, neither team scored, so after four innings the score was 2 to 0 in favor of Appling. In the top of the fifth inning, Appling scored three runs and when Bowdon got up to bat, they scored four runs, making the score 5 to 4. The sixth inning went scoreless, and then Bowdon scored 1 run in the seventh inning to tie the game. The Bowdon team had the bases loaded with no outs, but Appling County fought on and kept them from scoring another run. The game went into extra innings, and in the top of the eighth inning, Appling scored 3 runs. Bowdon then came in to bat in the bottom of the eighth and went scoreless--making Appling the State Champions! It was an enjoyable tournament and the Appling County Recreation Department is very proud of the team.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wanted to say that there have been a lot of steps we have taken since 9/11. Many of these steps have been taken against the Democrat leadership's will. I think it is sad that so soon after 9/11 there seemed to be so much partisan division, and yet there still was some bipartisan unity. We were able to, for example, increase funding for first responders on homeland security. We were able to pass the PATRIOT Act. We were able to pass the REAL ID Act that revamps the requirements for State identification cards. We passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And we passed more border security, including physical barriers, more Border Patrol agents, and more state-of-the-art technology. We ended the catch-and-release program. Unfortunately, 164 Democrats voted against it. We passed the Safe Port Act, which enhances our port safety. We did the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which set up a lot of intelligence-gathering information, and part of this was the NSA program on surveillance. And I want to say this, that I don't want the Federal Government listening to any conversation that I might have or you may have or constituents may have. But if they are suspected terrorists, and they are calling to Baghdad, I kind of want Uncle Sam to know about that. I was actually shocked to hear that on Monday Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrat Party, said that capturing Osama bin Laden would not make the world more safe. I was appalled that a Member of Congress would say such a thing. But I want you to know that that is a minority opinion. Most Democrats, most Republicans think capturing Osama bin Laden would be a good thing for the world's security and would, in fact, make the world safer. And I am glad that we have these intelligence surveillance programs so that we can close in on him. I am also glad that we passed the BioShield program to enhance our defense against chemical and biological weapons. We have also passed an Emergency Communications Act that will help us communicate during times of disaster, and a Maritime Security Act. All of these are done in reaction to 9/11, but also looking to prevent future attacks, and I think we are moving in the right direction. A lot of work has yet to be done, but we have got to stay the fight and we need to be unified. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an Associated Press article regarding events leading up to September 11, and a document entitled ``The Post-9/11 Facts.' Timeline: Key Events Leading Up to Sept. 11 Chronology of some key events in U.S. relations with Islamic groups and with Usama bin Laden before Sept. 11, 2001: Feb. 26, 1993--Bomb explodes in garage under World Trade Center, killing six and injuring more than 1,000. Group of Islamic extremists later convicted. Nov. 13, 1995--Seven people, including five Americans, killed when two bombs explode at U.S.-Saudi military facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Usama bin Laden blamed for attack. Sept. 27, 1996--Taliban, suspected of giving refuge to bin Laden, completes takeover of Kabul, Afghanistan. June 25, 1996--Bin Laden followers detonate bomb at U.S. military base near Ohahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers and wounding hundreds of Americans and Saudi Arabians. Aug. 7, 1998--U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, bombed, killing more than 250 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring 5,000. In retaliation, United States launches airstrikes against suspected terrorist camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. Aug. 28, 1998--FBI accuses bin Laden of having declared ``jihad,'' or holy war, against United States. Complaint also alleges bin Laden founded Al Qaeda that year to promote Islamic fundamentalism and force non-Muslims out of Muslim countries. Nov. 4, 1998--Bin Laden charged with ordering embassy bombings. Oct. 12, 2000--Suicide bombers in Yemen attack U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Officials suspect bin Laden involvement. Jan. 15, 2001--U.N. imposes new economic sanctions against Taliban for refusing to turn over bin Laden for trial.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to thank both the majority Member and the minority Member for letting me talk a little bit about Jekyll Island. During the course of the bill, we were having an immigrations hearing in Cannon, and I came over here as quickly as I could; but I wanted to talk somewhat about the bill, which I understand the Resources Committee has accepted, and I certainly appreciate that. A lot of people have done a lot of hard work on it, but I just wanted to say that the importance of this legislation, which is agreed to, goes back to the history of Jekyll Island, which is a barrier island off the coast of Georgia. In 1947, Jekyll was purchased by the State of Georgia. In 1950, the State legislature enacted a law that said 65 percent of the island would stay in its preserved and natural state and only 35 percent of it would be developed. The 35 percent of it was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, long before the CBRA law about flood insurance and the Coastal Barrier Resource Act. The State has maintained that 35/65 percent split; and all the 35 percent is, in fact, built out. Yet, somewhere along the line, it got included in the CBRA law, which made it the case that residents could no longer get flood care, which was not the point of the law at all. We found out about this in 2003, when Walter Alexander, a resident of Jekyll Island, had his duplex burned down. He was cleaning up the land and preparing to rebuild his structure when he found out he could not get Federal flood insurance, and that was because of a quirk that happened in 1990. And we have been working on this since 2003 trying to get this exemption from the flood insurance law so that the people on Jekyll Island could in fact go back to getting flood care the way they had it. So this has been something we have been working on for a long time. A lot of people had been involved in it, and I certainly want to thank Chairman Pombo and Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest, and Edith Thompson, who is on the staff; and Harry Burroughs, who is the staff director for Mr. Gilchrest; and folks like Bill Donahue and Laura Bonds, who are with the Jekyll Island Authority back home. Also, Pat Wilson, with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and Commissioner Noel Holcomb, Becky Kelly and Susan Shipman; and the Fish and Wildlife folks and the residents and businesses on Jekyll Island. We have all worked on this in a collaborative effort. There has not been any opposition on this. Democrats, Republicans, and environmentalists. I would say developers, but developers have not been at the table since all this has already been developed for now about 30 or 40 years. But I just wanted to say this is a very good day for the folks on Jekyll Island, and I thank both of you for allowing me to speak up about this issue. Before I get into specifics of my bill I want to thank everyone who has helped in the lengthy process to bring this bill to the floor. Thank you to Chairmen Pombo and Gilchrest and their staff, specifically Edith Thompson (Gilchrest) and Harry Burroughs (Staff Director for Gilchrest subcommittee but Pombo person). Also Merritt Meyers and Rob Asbell from our office. Thank you to the Jekyll Island Authority--the relentless work of Bill Donahue and Laura Bonds, the Governor's office with assistance from Pat Wilson, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Commissioner Noel Holcomb, Becky Kelly and Susan Shipman), the Fish and Wildlife Service and the residents and businesses on Jekyll Island. History: 1947--Jekyll Island purchased by the State from the Jekyll Island Club; 1950--Georgia General Assembly enacted a law that assured 65 percent of the Island would be preserved and protected in its natural state and managed for future generations to enjoy while 35 percent be developed to render the Island as self-supporting. The 35 percent of the island that could be developed largely was during the 1960s and early 1970s--long before the original CBRA. The State, working through state laws has moved to aggressively create a balance among development, public access and education and conservation long before Jekyll Island was included in the CBRS and that balance is now in jeopardy as redevelopment is critical to the viability of the Island. If anything, Jekyll Island should be the model for the rest of the U.S. to use for the coexistence of development and conservation and quite honestly the dependence of one on the other. I was contacted by Jekyll Island resident, Walter Alexander in 2003 because his duplex burned down. As Mr. Alexander began cleaning up the land and planning for replacing the structure he found out that he could not obtain Federal Flood Insurance, the insurance he must have in order to get a mortgage--and private flood insurance was prohibitively expensive for him. He contacted the Jekyll Island Authority and together they began researching and found out that Jekyll Island in its entirety was included as an Otherwise Protected Area within the CBRS in 1990. The situation became even more urgent when he saw that in his original lease if he did not rebuild within 2 years he could lose the land. Almost immediately after the fire Mr. Alexander started receiving offers to purchase the lot lease from wealthy individuals that could build the house without having to take out a mortgage. He turned down these offers because he wanted to stay close to his family who all lived on the Island. Mr. Alexander is a nurse, and does not have a salary that allows him to rebuild without a mortgage--he was finally forced to take drastic action and borrow money against the equity in his parent's home so he could begin construction--this greatly reduces their family security during retirement. He is using this money to rebuild a duplex that not only meets, but exceeds FEMA regulations for flooding. This is but one example of what denying insurance for rebuilding a community developed in the 1960s does--this is not what CBRS original intent was. Arguments: (1) Jekyll Island should not have been included in 1990 on the CBRS maps as an OPA because it was ``developed'' long before it was included in the system; (2) prior to the inclusion, the Governor and the Department of Natural Resources of Georgia objected to the inclusion of Jekyll Island in the System; (3) the inclusion of Jekyll Island runs counter to congressional intent as OPA's were to include only Undeveloped lands held for conservation; and (4) the inclusion of Jekyll Island runs counter to State intent as 35 percent of the island by Georgia law must be developed, and is necessary to be developed to render the Island self-supporting. Need for Change: I strongly believe that if the 35 percent of the island that is developed is not removed from the CBRS the long term integrity of the system will be harmed. If the original intent of the Act was to preserve undeveloped coastal barrier islands then I think leaving Jekyll Island in, in its entirety would set a bad precedence for the CBRS. This legislation removes land from the Coastal Barrier Resources System, specifically from a unit that should not have been created in the first place since it was neither undeveloped nor held for conservation purposes. The Fish and Wildlife Service supports my bill and the new map associated with it that removes 35 percent of Jekyll Island from CBRA. Leaving the 35 percent of Jekyll which has long been developed in the CBRS would ultimately do two things: (1) the Island would turn into a run down shanty town with deteriorating houses and businesses. It would lose its allure to tourists across the world and would ultimately become a burden to the State since it would no longer be self- sustaining or (2) it would again become a playground for only the rich and famous who could afford the costly Lloyds of London flood insurance required to build, maintain, repair and update all structures on the island--and that is not fair to the hardworking tax-paying people who currently call Jekyll Island home or inexpensive vacation spot.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Price for his cosponsorship of this, and also, I wanted to acknowledge my friends Mr. Scott and Mr. Gingrey for their cosponsorship, but I also wanted to say, many thanks to my friend John Lewis, the lead sponsor of this. When he asked me to cosponsor the resolution commemorating Spelman College for their 125th anniversary, it was an easy ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker, and it was easy because I had an employee who is a Spelman graduate. Her name is Karen Robenson Boggans. She is not working with me anymore and, indeed, has gone on to bigger and better things, but I hope that I helped her on the pathway to the top. She is doing great things. When she was my legislative assistant, Karen handled many issues. She was smart, intelligent, capable, task-oriented, focused and got the job done, and only because she was moving out of town did she leave our office. In fact, when she moved back to Savannah, I was able to get her to come back to work for us for a short period of time, and then she got a bigger calling one more time. But if she is an example, and she is, of a Spelman graduate, it is a great institution, and I know it to be a great institution. As Mr. Lewis pointed out: in 1881, when Spelman was started, it was a school for African American women because there were not many choices. Now there are lots and lots of choices, and yet Spelman still continues to show lots of leadership. It is still a great choice for women to go to this school because they learn how to be competitive, and they learn business, and they learn how to write, and they learn the basics of getting the job done. They are all over the world today. They are in 39 different countries and 42 different States. It is international in scope. The funding for historically black colleges and institutions since 1995, under the leadership, I believe, of J.C. Watts, and as much as anybody, but good bipartisan leadership has increased 118 percent. Spelman College is an investment not just in historically black colleges and institutions but in America, because you are investing in your own people who will go on to become great leaders in our country. So I am proud to stand as a cosponsor of this, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that, in fact, under H.J. Res. 88, State legislatures can allow same-sex benefits in the unions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I also will submit into the Record at this point some groups who want to go on the record as being in support of this. Coalitions for America, Washington, DC, July 17, 2006. Dear Representative, I want you to know that I am in fu11 support of your efforts and appreciate your leadership role in helping to defend traditional marriage by sponsoring House Joint Resolution 88, a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As a conservative, amending the Constitution is not something I or others should take lightly, but with the continuous assault from the left on traditional marriage ``day in and day out'' it is an issue that must be addressed, I believe, by amending the Constitution. Sincerely, Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the United States Congress passed DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, and the idea behind that was that marriage would be recognized in this Nation as the union of one man and one woman. It was not the first time that the United States Congress had gotten involved in the definition of marriage. Indeed, Mr. Lungren had reminded us earlier today that the State of Utah and Arizona and I believe one other Western State, in order to join the Union, needed to define in their State constitution marriage as a union between one man and one woman in order to become States in the United States. But unfortunately, since 1986, activist courts have eroded the intent of Congress, and so we come today on the House floor with H.J. Res. 88, which reads: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'' The purpose of this is to say that no governmental entity, legislative, executive or judicial, shall be allowed to alter the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, and it also prevents Federal courts from construing the Constitution or a State constitution to change that definition as well. This, indeed, is the desire of the American people at this point. A recent poll shows that 69 percent of Americans strongly agree that marriage should exist between one man and one woman. The State Constitution amendments on the States that have passed them, which now numbers 45, average by passing 71.5 percent. Forty-five States, Mr. Speaker, have enacted laws about this. Why is this necessary, then, to come back to the floor if the States are handling it? The fact is that there are great and deliberate challenges to DOMA in the United States Constitution. We can go back to 1965. The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut discovered a constitutional right to contraceptive noted in marital privacy, and the Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 decided that the right to reproductive privacy was applied to abortion, wholly outside the context of a marriage. In 1996, the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick refused to create a right of sexual privacy for same-sex couples, but then, in 2003, the Court reversed itself in the Lawrence v. Texas case. In the Lawrence case, the Court claimed not to have gone so far as to establish a right to same-sex marriage, but then the State of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court prominently used the Lawrence decision just a few months later to do exactly that. That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. This is not, as we have been charged, political pandering. This is not a frivolous exercise. Indeed, I certainly think this Congress, under the leadership of the Speaker and under the leadership of the President of the United States, has worked hard to address the issues of the day. We have worked hard in the war on terrorism. We have worked hard in the situation in the Middle East. Indeed, as the President attended the G-8, the number one topic right now is, of course, Lebanon and Israel. We have worked hard on balancing the budget. This House recently passed the line-item veto. This House has passed earmark reform. The Appropriations Committee, which has passed 10 out of its 11 appropriations bills, has reduced spending $4 billion by cutting out 95 different programs. We are engaged in addressing the fuel situation. We have passed tax reform which has created 5.3 million jobs since 2003. We are very involved in the issues of today, and I will say to you that marriage is certainly one of the top-tier issues that it is the right and the obligation of the United States Congress to address, and again, not a battle that we have chosen to have but one that has been thrown back to us by the courts. That is why we are here today, and we will have this debate, and I look forward to hearing from my friend from New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to close and I just want to split the time between Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Musgrave. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the previous speaker, my friend, to watch one of the 527 ads that are being run against Mrs. Musgrave. If she wants to see hateful speech, and one of the most hideous hateful acts that I have witnessed on any Member of Congress, I would invite anybody who is talking about hate to watch the ads that are run against our colleague for sponsorship of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 918, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman from New York, I have one more speaker. Then we are ready to close.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former attorney general of California, the distinguished Dan Lungren.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out to my friend from Missouri that in order to become States in the United States of America, Arizona and Utah had to change their own State constitutions to recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman in order to do away with polygamy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 88.