Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would not prevent any State from enacting civil union laws, but would protect marriage in all 50 States. Recently, I went to a friend, Mr. Sage Brown, who is a distinguished attorney and civil rights leader in Savannah, Georgia. Indeed, he is featured at the Gilbert Civil Rights Museum as a man who was on the frontlines of integration and did so much for the African American community. I asked him, Is this a civil rights-type issue, to which he said no, the relationship of marriage is the most sacred building block of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and has nothing to do with violating our civil rights. If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then is it logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so we do not exclude anybody? If marriage violated the civil rights of two men or two women who wanted to be married to each other, then it would also violate the civil rights of a polygamist, somebody else who wants to have a different marriage than that between a man and a woman. Mr. Brown raised a number of good points which I am going to submit for the Record. I wish there was more time to have debate on it, but I wanted to bring up something from his point of view. Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would not prevent States from enacting civil union laws but would protect marriage in all 50 States. It would state that ``marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.'' When I hear my distinguished colleagues from the other side say that marriage should be redefined because it is discriminatory, I respectfully disagree. Moreover, I believe that a great majority of Americans disagree. I've spoken with many minority men and women in my district who have experienced civil rights abuses first hand. Recently, I spoke with Mr. Sage Brown, a distinguished African American civil rights leader from my district who said and I quote: The relationship of marriage is a most sacred building block of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and has nothing to do with violating our civil rights. It is not a question of whether or not a person can enter into a relationship such as a civil union. Our country was formed by a group of people who were persecuted for believing certain fundamental things. They looked at their creator in terms of the defining foundation for our families . . . and this foundation included the marriage of a man and a woman. The installation of marriage was wholly designed for the production, reproduction and propagation of the family. Our marriage laws--defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman--were designed to be a blessing to children and society. There is a certain element of complementarity between men and women that is biological by nature. If marriage violated the civil rights of two men and two women who want to be married, then it also violates the civil rights of polygamists, and of single adults who want to marry themselves. If our distinguished colleagues believe it is a civil rights issue, then do they also believe it discriminates against people who believe in polygamy. Does it also discriminate against three men who want to marry? What about four women? What about single people who don't want to marry another person? Should they be excluded? If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then it is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't exclude anyone. Marriage is an institution fits in perfect harmony with the laws of nature; whereas systems of slavery and segregation were designed to brutally oppress people and thereby violated the laws of nature. By contrast, marriage is designed to help children by keeping their mothers and fathers together. Slavery and segregation were meant to exploit and degrade. There is a fundamental difference. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage. That's why it's wrong to forbid interracial marriage and that's why overturning these laws was a legitimate civil rights issue. But whether a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Marriage encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a bond for the protection of children. That is not discrimination. It is the building block on which society is based. Marriege was not created to place people in bondage. It was created for having children, and to propagate the human race from one generation to the next. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution-- which has been around since the origin of mankind. It is honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Moreover, it would prevent the judicial chaos we are beginning to see with recent rulings whereas gay couples are suing in States that do not recognize same sex marriage. Recently, Oregon conducted over 3,000 same sex marriages consisting of couples who live in over 30 States. Lawless local officials have ignored the law and issued same-sex licenses in California, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. This issue is Federal, not State or local. The States' rights issue is meaningless if judges are the ultimate rulers. We are headed for a proliferation of court cases in all 50 States if we do not act now. So far, 44 States, or 88 percent of the States, have enacted laws providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the Republican Party put forth the Contract with America, and it was the first time that collectively Members of Congress had put forth an agenda. And certainly the Democrats did not like it, but 10 years later they are trying to do the same thing, and I applaud them. I think it is good to honestly show the folks what their platform is. Part of our platform, of course, was tax cuts. Does anyone think that we would have had tax cuts had the Democrats stayed in power? Part of our platform was welfare reform. There were 14 million people on welfare. Today there are about 4 million. Does anyone think that 9 million people would be back in the workplace if it had not been for the Republican Contract with America? The military spending went from $260 billion to today $419 billion and restrengthened our military. Does anybody think that would have happened without the Republican Contract with America? And No Child Left Behind, our landmark education reform bill that put parents back in charge and teachers, not bureaucrats, in Washington. Does anyone think that would have happened without the Contract with America? These platforms are good. This debate is worth having. We have been in power for 10 years. There is a lot more we need to be doing. We are going to work for tax simplification and more tax reduction, and we need to get better control on spending. Both parties need to do that. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been in power 10 years and proud of the accomplishments we have had in that period.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Karen A. Cooper consistently displayed outstanding service to this Nation as she served the United States Army for over forty years. Her distinguished public service began in 1964. Mrs. Cooper will end her dedicated service to the United States in 2004 as the Administrative Assistant for the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Housing). Her insight and grasp of administrative procedures and knowledge of her job enabled her to insure the successful completion of all tasks with the United States Army Secretariat. Through Mrs. Cooper's diligence and exceptionally high degree of professionalism and technical abilities, she made a marked improvement in Army installations for soldiers, Army families, and civilian employees.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution that will restore the Librarian's authority to hire Library of Congress police employees. And I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for bringing this important resolution to the floor. Madam Speaker, for the past ten months, the Librarian has been without the authority to hire police officers. The result of which has been a significant deficit in the Library's ability to meet its security mission to protect the Library's vast collection and ensure the safety of Members, staff, and visitors in the Library. His authority was repealed in a provision inserted in the last year's conference report by the other body, which also mandated our own United States Capitol Police to detail their officers to the Library, even though the Capitol Police currently lack the jurisdictional authority to police the Library's buildings. This was done in an effort to circumvent the jurisdiction of the appropriate oversight committees who have been engaged in evaluating the merits of merging the two agencies and force the beginnings of a merger of the Library's police force and the U.S. Capitol Police. The Chairman's committee has been performing his appropriate oversight by reviewing several draft memorandums between the Capitol Police and the Library outlining the detail of officers to the Library. During this process, a multitude of questions have risen to the surface regarding not only how to merge the agencies, but really whether the security of the Capitol complex would be improved if they did merge. I do not believe that there will be any measurable improvement in the overall security. I believe that it is merely a way for the Capitol Police to expand their jurisdiction. I do not support Capitol Police officers being detailed to the Library in what can only be interpreted as a pilot program for a merger. And I certainly do not support the current effort of the other body to merge the Library of Congress police with the Capitol Police. Additionally, the time and attention being paid to fix the current situation that the Library and the Capitol Police have been put in is putting unnecessary strain on the agencies and distracting them from their primary missions during a crucial time. Madam Speaker I agree with the Chairman Ney's comments that this growing need for officers at the Library is the Congress' own creation and we need to fix it. Madam Speaker it is vitally important to the security of the Capitol complex that we restore the Librarian's authority to hire police officers. And I will work to ensure that they have the necessary funds to train and pay the officers that will be hired to fill the current manpower gap. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today the bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave their report to Members of Congress, and I think it was a solid report. It pointed out we just did not have the imagination to perceive our enemies hating us so much that they would use airplanes as missiles and attack us in the somewhat cowardly, surprised manner that they did. We did not have the capabilities in our intelligence community because we looked at it through Cold War visions. We should have been looking ahead. Finally, we did have not the right management tools. The CIA, the FBI, and other agencies were not talking to each other. Therefore, one of their recommendations was to put together a national security czar, one person who would be above the CIA and the FBI to kind of control the 15 different intelligence agencies. I think it is an interesting proposal, one that I think most Members of Congress are going to be receptive to. They also said that we need to put together a committee, maybe a select joint committee between House and Senate, for more oversight, perhaps giving it the authority to authorize and appropriate. Oversight, Members of Congress are going to be very interested in this, and I am looking forward to a good bipartisan effort to address the issues raised by the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say that my friend from North Carolina who so capably represents Fort Bragg, I, as he knows, have five military installations in my district that I am proud to represent. Tomorrow night, in fact, I am going to be at Fort Stewart talking to some of the soldiers. This is a program that does enjoy wide bipartisan support. We are going to keep working on this and find a way to make it happen. We had lots of discussion in the appropriations committee. We could not quite come to a consensus of where to offset some money. I think there are a lot of programs out there that we should cut, reduce, eliminate, in order to provide adequate housing for our troops and the quality of life for our soldiers in general. But the one thing to remember is we are in this position because of a technical change in the way the Congressional Budget Office has decided to score military housing. What they are doing is they charge all the money up-front, even though the private sector is paying for it. It is a paper entry. It is not a real dollar entry. I certainly respect what the Committee on the Budget is doing in trying to keep the integrity of the budget process going. I think it is very, very important that we all try to work through this thing. But if we are faced with this change in the scoring from the Congressional Budget Office, I would like to see us find some waste, some duplication, and just some fat in the budget and come up with the money for our soldiers because I think it is so important. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have enjoyed working with him on various installation issues.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today we received the long awaited report from the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 report I think had some constructive ideas that we in Washington are going to listen to. It was a bipartisan group and they had a lot of good thoughts and some good discussion, and it was a unanimous report. Three of the things that they said were our problems going into 9/11 was one, we did ignore a lot of red flags. Number two, the capacity that we had to fight terrorism, we were somewhat in the Cold War model and not using all of the technology or on-the-ground intelligence that we really need for this century. Number three, the management of information, the FBI not talking to the CIA, other agencies not sharing information led to lots of things going on and the right arm not knowing what the left arm was doing. Finally, just our imagination, unable to really conceive of people who hated us so much that we did not know what they were plotting against us, that they were willing to kill themselves, they were instructed to kill Americans in order to get revenge on a country that had done them no harm. Yet, indeed, if we look at some of the terrorist attacks leading into 9/11, as outlined by our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), and I will submit this for the Record, it is unbelievable. November 1979, terror in Iran, American embassy attacked, hostages taken. April 1983, Beirut, 63 people killed from a truck filled with explosives driven into the United States embassy. October 1983, Beirut, 241 U.S. servicemen killed from a truck filled with explosives, driven through the main gate of a U.S. Marine Corps headquarters. September 1984, Beirut, a truck filled with explosives crashed through the gate of the U.S. embassy compound. October 1995, the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacked, one American killed. November 1985, hijackers on an Egyptian plane kill U.S. passengers. December 1985, Rome and Vienna, 20 killed from suicide bombers at U.S. and Israeli international airports. April 1988, 259 killed in bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. December 1992, Yemen, 2 killed from a bomb at Gold Mohur Hotel immediately after 100 U.S. servicemen departed. February 1993, World Trade Center, New York City, 6 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries. October 1993, 18 U.S. servicemen killed, Osama bin Laden claims he supplied weapons and fighters to the Somalians. 1994, New York City, investigators thwart the attempt to blow up Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and other New York City landmarks. 1995 Manila, Philippines investigators discover plots to assassinate the Pope and President Clinton during his visit to the Philippines. This list, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on, and I am going to submit this for the Record. But again, one of the things the 9/11 Commission said is we could not imagine the whole concept of the war on terror. I think that what really happened on 9/11, we changed our views that terrorism is not a crime, but an act of war, and that these events, some isolated, are yet still linked together. I think with some of the recommendations that they have come up with we will be able to avoid this in the future. In the meantime, we need to complete our job and our duty in Iraq. Iraq has harbored terrorists, and that was also in the 9/11 Commission Report. And we have a report that has come in; one year after being in Iraq, U.S. Agency for International Development talking about restoring the services there. This book, Mr. Speaker, which is available to the public, I do have a web page: www.usaid.gov, that is the U.S. Agency for International Development, it talks about reopening the schools there, building the democracy, vaccinating children, helping small businesses and newspapers to reopen. Lots of work is being done. Iraq is an independent country at this point. It is on its own. We need to support them. We do not need to pull the rug out from under them. We need to help them complete their journey to democracy, and it is not time for Congress to pull the rug out from under them in the name of November politics. memorandum To: Members. From: Tim Murphy (PA-18). Date: July 21, 2004. Subject: Timeline of major terrorist activities. As we head home for the August recess and face questions from our constituents regarding the War on Terror, I thought you might find helpful this timeline of actual and attempted terrorist attacks. November 1979--Tehran, Iran: American Embassy attacked and seized, hostages taken--released 1981. April 1983--Beirut: 63 people killed from truck filled with explosives driven into U.S. Embassy. October 1983--Beirut: 241 U.S. servicemen killed from truck filled with explosives driven through main gate at U.S. Marine Corps headquarters. September 1984--Beirut: Truck filled with explosives crashes through gate into U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut, no deaths. August 1985--Rhein-Main, Germany: 22 killed from car filled with explosives driven into main gate at U.S. Air Force Base. October 1985: Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacked, one American killed. November 1985: Hijackers on Egyptian plane kill U.S. passengers. December 1985--Rome and Vienna: 20 killed from suicide bombers at U.S. and Israeli international airports. April 1988: 259 killed in bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. December 1992--Aden, Yemen: Two killed from bomb at Gold Mohur Hotel immediately after one hundred U.S. servicemen departed on their way to duty in Somalia. February 1993--World Trade Center, New York City: Six deaths and more than 1,000 injuries from bombing. October 1993--Mogadishu, Somalia: 18 U.S. servicemen killed, Bin Laden claims he supplied weapons and fighters to Somalis involved in the battle. 1994--New York City: Investigators thwarted attempt to blow up Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks. Late 1994 early 1995--Manila, Philippines: Investigators discovered plots to assassinate the Pope and President Clinton during visits to the Philippines. 1995: Investigators discovered plans to explode a dozen commercial jets over the Pacific. June 1995--Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. November 1995--Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Five Americans killed by car bomb at a U.S.-run training facility for the Saudi National Guard. June 1996--Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: 19 U.S. airmen killed by truck bomb at the Khobar Towers apartment compound where hundreds of U.S. Air Force personnel were stationed. August 1998--Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania & Nairobi, Kenya: 224 killed, including 12 Americans, and more than 5,000 wounded by truck bombs at U.S. embassies in both cities. December 1999--Port Angeles, Washington: U.S. Customs agents stopped Ahmed Ressam from crossing out of Canada into the U.S. with a truck full of explosives headed to Los Angeles airport. December 1999--Amman, Jordan: Intelligence officials reveal plot to kill U.S. and Israeli citizens by bombing a fully booked hotel and prominent Christian sites over millennium celebrations. October 2000--Aden, Yemen: 17 sailors killed and 30 wounded when terrorists on boat rigged with explosives attack the U.S.S. Cole. September 2001--New York City; Washington, DC; Shanksville, Pennsylvania: Thousands killed from four hijacked passenger airliners crashed into New York City's two tallest buildings, the Pentagon and a field in rural Pennsylvania. September 2001--Paris and Brussels: Intelligence officials uncover evidence of plots to bomb the U.S. embassy in Paris, and possibly also NATO headquarters in Brussels. October 2001--Sarajevo, Bosnia: NATO officials break up an al-Qaeda cell planning to attack the U.S. embassy and Eagle Base airfield, home base to 3,000 U.S. peacekeepers. December 2001: Richard Reid attempts to blow up a commercial flight from United Kingdom en route to United States using bombs hidden in his shoes. March 2004--Madrid, Spain: 198 killed and more than 1,400 wounded from 10 coordinated bomb detonations on Madrid subway during commuter rush hour.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commemorate Pembroke, Georgia on its 200th Anniversary in 2004. I'm honored to represent this vibrant city and to call many of its residents my friends. Historic downtown Pembroke is named for Pembroke Williams who was a judge and a prominent local resident in the late 19th century. The historic district is located in the central business district of this city of 2,500 persons and is characterized by its relationship to the Georgia Central Railroad, which bisects the town. It was founded as a farming town, like so many similar towns which sprouted during that time to serve the agricultural needs of the nation. The layout of the town around the railroad hearkens to a time of great growth, industrial zeal and expansionism. Pembroke found a thriving life serving the trains that led to the great markets of the coast. The majority of the structures in the district are of 1930s and 1940s vintage. The city also consists of several blocks of early 20th-Century commercial and government buildings. With the exception of a few buildings, all of the buildings are of one or two stories in height, and most of the buildings are brick or brick-faced buildings with pine timber construction. The buildings in the district are a variety of styles and materials, all dating from the early to mid 1900s. Most are brick one and two- storied commercial buildings and originally had wood or metal awnings over the windows. Today, the buildings show architectural niceties such as terra cotta embellishments, carved cornerstone, and marble commemorative plaques that reflect the pride of simple rural businessmen in their buildings and in their town. The most interesting structures architecturally are the Pembroke Millworks building and the Food bank building. Most of the buildings in the district are in good condition and are currently in use as publicly owned property. The historic district of Pembroke was created to serve the agricultural needs of the nation in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The layout of the town around the railroad, the plethora of commercial structures crowding the verges of the railroad property, and the prim, stolid storefronts of the respectable buildings all hearken to a time of great growth, industrial zeal and expansionism in American history. The history of Pembroke is the history of early American commerce. Founded as a railroad depot, Pembroke found a thriving life serving the trains that led to the great markets of the coast. When the trains stopped coming and the commerce declined, the town faltered, but managed to remain alive through the tough years. Now on the verge of explosive re-growth as a bedroom community to Savannah, Pembroke is seeking to retain its heritage, while finding new vitality in the influx of new residents. Much of the historic district, once the province of private industry, is today publicly owned property. The buildings themselves, and their changing uses over the years, offer a glimpse into the working of local government of the last century. At the same time, several of the buildings--the ``Welcome Center,'' the old Jail, and the Tos Theater to name the most prominent--retain elements of some of the more grim elements of its past . . . the stark conditions of prisoners in the jail, the segregated seating in the old theater, the peculiar design of the ``Welcome Center'' (with slit windows giving the police officers a vantage on the entire downtown.) The Tos Theater, founded by G.S. Tos, was a quintessential example of the small-town movie palace. Without even a concession stand (candy, popcorn, and sodas were obtained from the drugstore soda fountain next door), the Tos Theater nevertheless was an important social gathering place for the town. With segregated seating (the toilet facilities), the building also recalls some of the social conventions of the 20th Century South, conventions which are fast fading into the past, but should be recalled and recognized. Pembroke's Historic District is a landscape defined by transportation. First by the railway, which gave the town its reason for existence and its livelihood for much of its history. Second by horses and mules, the dependence on which beasts of burden helped to define the layout of the city. Third by the car, highways for which have provided the lifeline for the city, keeping Pembroke connected to its larger neighbors for much of the latter half of the 20th Century. The highways--Hwy. 67, Hwy. 119 and Hwy. 280--which converge in Pembroke will help to define its future, as they have its past. I am proud to recognize Pembroke, Georgia on this its 200th Anniversary. This town has provided much to the state of Georgia and I am proud to have represented it in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I appreciate the time and wanted to stand in support of the chairman's mark on this important bill. We have been working in the Subcommittee on Military Construction for many years to get this housing privatization project going. To date, we have got about 60,000 houses that are under this program. It has been a huge success. Yet we have something like 160-odd thousand to go. That would be our goal. That would give us about 70 percent of the existing housing units. Big step. It has been a very, very positive program from Fort Meade to Fort Stewart. Here is a quote that one of the soldiers in our area at Fort Stewart actually wrote us: ``There is a maintenance manager here at Fort Stewart, who is undoubtedly the best I have seen in my 20 years in the military. He is responsible for Marne Homes. He is personable, kind, and most of all a man of his word. If he says he'll fix something, he will fix it and he will fix it fast. He'll fix the root of a problem and not just put a Band-Aid on it. I feel better'' and perhaps this is the key sentence, ``I feel better going to Iraq in a few months knowing he will be here to take care of my family.'' That is a strong statement for our soldiers back home, and yet what is the problem here? We have two scoring agencies. One is the Congressional Budget Office. One is the Office of Management and Budget. And this year, for some reason, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, changed the way they want to score this. In essence, what they did is they charged all the money up front. It is the equivalent of going to a soldier and saying, instead of your annual pay being scored on a 1-year basis, we are going to multiply it by the 20 years you are going to serve in the military and we are going to score your pay against you for the whole 20 years. That is what the Congressional Budget Office did. That does not make any sense, but the Office of Management and Budget did not change its scoring. The program has not changed, nor has the committee position changed. So we should not change as Members of the House. We need to stand with our military. The manager's amendment has fixed this problem for right now. We have got good bipartisan support on it, and we need to move forward on this bill. So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that already have been said, which I would like to repeat in my own words, but I am sure my fellow Members of Congress would not mind if I spoke for a little less period of time; but I just want to say that this is what we need to do for our soldiers.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate that. Thanks.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wanted to stand in support of the Buyer amendment and say also I support this for two reasons. Number one, I am very uncomfortable with the U.N., regardless of what their intentions could be. It is a political body. They are very, very anti-American and I think very ineffective. Just look at their record on human rights, their record on peace around the world, the records on democracy. The U.N. would not be who you want to come in and straighten out a problem. Secondly, let us go under the assumption there was a problem and what did we do about it. One thing to remember, and I went down to Florida. Twenty-five of the counties in Florida that had the highest percentage of vote spoilage, or they were accused of it, how many were controlled by a Republican? Zero. All of the 25 had Democrat chief election officials. Now, as a Republican who was asked to go down there and monitor the recount, I was expecting the worst. I went in there, as I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) did, and we sat in kind of bleachers and watched Theresa LePore and Judge Burton, two of the Democrats. Ironically, I forget the Republican's name. And they would hold the ballots up and look at the chads. I expected the worst, but I want to say to my Democrat friends, they did the right thing. They were looking it in the eye. They were resisting all the political pressure from the outside. They were running Palm Beach and Broward and Dade County the way it should be run, on a local level. The Democrats were doing it, and the Democrats I think were doing a doggone good job. I went back and told my friends, you know what, that process is fair. Key point being is we handled the problem, we handled it locally. We do not need a lot of outsiders from the U.N. to come in.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, Americans remain frustrated and fed up with the liberal lopsided media. Worse than their decisive liberalness, Americans are tired of the media's pessimism: we cannot have democracy in the Middle East. We have to have the permission of the U.N. We will never get out of there without France and Germany. One man in my district has taken matters into his own hands. At his own expense, O. C. Welch has taken out the following ad which he calls ``The Rest of the Story.'' He lists all the good things that have happened in Iraq, from building schools to getting small businesses up and running, to getting hospitals open again, to bringing electricity back. He says, ``There are many, many people in Iraq that want us there, and want us there bad. They say that they will never see the freedom we talk about, but they hope their children will. Our troops have performed brilliantly and have done a great job both during combat and reconstruction.'' That is O. C. Welch's contribution to the cause. I think it is a good one. I know Mr. Welch. He is a self-made man. He started out selling used cars at the old Plantation Nightclub lot. He moved to Claxton, Georgia. Now he is in Beaufort. He is a family man, he is a generous giver to the Catholic church, but above all O. C. Welch is a great American and an optimist. [From the Savannah Morning News, July 5, 2004] The Rest of the Story this is a list of some of the positive things that have happened in iraq recently Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations. School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. Girls are allowed to attend school. Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur. The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off- loaded from ships faster. The country had its first two billion barrel export of oil in August. Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq. The country now receives two times the electrical power it did before the war. 100% of the hospitals are open and fully-staffed, compared to 35% before the war. Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place. Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side- by-side with U.S. soldiers. Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever. Students are taught field sanitation and hand-washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. An interim constitution has been signed. Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years. There are many, many people in Iraq that want us there, and want us there bad. They say that they will never see the freedom we talk about, but they hope their children will. Our troops have performed brilliantly and have done a great job both during combat and reconstruction. God bless all of them and the job they do.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bonilla amendment and believe that the chairman of the committee is moving in the right direction. The Common Computing Environment program I think does render very valuable technical assistance, but I understand the pressures that we are under to try to get money out on the local level to the farmers. One of the things that has always disturbed me as a Member of Congress is when we allocate money for anything, military, education, health care, whatever, it is astounding the amount of the dollars that stay in Washington, D.C. As I drive around this beautiful city, I do not see too many farmers. I see a lot of monuments and some lakes and some parks, but I do not see many corn fields or cow pastures or hog pens. Yet if we support the Bonilla amendment, we are pushing the dollars out of town towards those agencies, the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development Agency, towards the farmer, towards the local people. It is interesting, as somebody who represents rural southeast Georgia with 29 different counties in it, as I go around visiting my farmers and those in the agriculture community and the agriculture family, they speak highly of these agencies and the work that they do. The rural development folks, they do all kinds of housing opportunities in my area and some other much-needed projects that we think are very important for economic development in the smaller towns. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is very important for erosion control and best cultivation practices and good technical assistance to the farmers. Of course, the Farm Service Agency delivers the farm credit program to farmers all over the country. But what I like best about these folks is they are Federal Government, USDA employees, 100 percent on the USDA salary, but they answer 100 percent to the farmers back home in Bacon County and in Appling County and in Coffee County, the folks who I am trying to serve and represent in Washington. That is the same people that these agencies are serving. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said earlier today, these are the people that our farmers ask for assistance from; and they really do not ask for more money in the USDA bureaucracy as much as getting it back home to rural Texas, rural Illinois, rural Iowa, rural Georgia and so forth. I stand in strong support of the Bonilla amendment and hope that our colleagues give it a majority.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. If we have the Edwards-Kerry trial lawyer ticket, we probably will not have any serious medical liability reform, would we?

Mr. KINGSTON. In that field, how big is the problem of malpractice as you the gentleman know it firsthand?

Mr. KINGSTON. As the gentleman talks to physicians, if someone said, name the top three problems physicians are faced with right now, would malpractice be one of them?

Mr. KINGSTON. What was your specialty?

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and also for giving your perspective. I wanted to ask the doctor a few questions, if I could, before he leaves. How long did the gentleman practice medicine?

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for joining us. We have been joined by another physician, member of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and wanted to point out, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was a practicing OB-GYN until his election to Congress.

Mr. KINGSTON. So unless we address the frivolous medical liability suits in our country, the cost of medicine will skyrocket and the availability is going to shrink?

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I think we had a good discussion here today. I notice my friends on the other side of the aisle are here chomping at the bit and I know are eagerly awaiting freedom of speech, equal time; and my friend from California is grabbing the mike right now for a discussion.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to present the Legislative branch appropriation bill for fiscal year 2005 to the House for consideration, and I want to start by thanking not just the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my ranking member, but I wanted to say thanks to all the subcommittee staff who have worked hard to make this bill possible: Liz Dawson, who is our Chief Clerk; Chuck Turner, our Staff Assistant; Kathy Rohan; Celia Alvarado; Tom Forhan; Tim Aiken; Bill Johnson; Heather McNatt; and Jennifer Hing. I wanted to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, that I have enjoyed working with him and working with all the subcommittee members. We have put together I think a good bill. We have had a number of amendments, some committee debate on it, and I think the product is a better bill because of that. It is a bipartisan bill and somewhat noncontroversial. I am not aware of any angst that Members have; although I know everybody would improve it here or there, given the opportunity. This bill actually funds the House of Representatives and all the various support agencies, including the Capitol Hill Police, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office and the General Accounting Office. The bill is $2.7 billion, which does not include the Senate items; and traditionally we do not fill in the blanks for the Senate. They do not fill in the blanks for us. The bill came in below the budget request and is basically flat, meaning that the size of it is about the same as what it was last year. It does, however, provide for the current staffing levels. It includes cost of living increases and other increases here and there for inflationary reasons. There are no deductions in force, and yet we have kept new initiatives off it and tried to defer funding on certain projects. Overall, the bill started out with a request level of $3.1 billion, and we were able to work that down to the $2.7 billion, My colleagues may also recall that the fiscal year 2004 bill was brought to the floor with a decrease from the 2003 levels. So the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has done its best to practice fiscal restraint and try to keep the President's goal in mind of a 1 percent increase for nondefense and homeland security discretionary spending, and we are actually below that. There are a number of important things in this bill, but what I might do is I see some Members are here to speak on it. At this point, I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, is here; and I will give him an opportunity to speak. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.