Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from California, I understand he has a motion to recommit, and we will debate it a little bit more then, but I certainly think there is a lot to say about it. Again, one of our things is that the Committee on House Administration needs to be doing the authorizing on that. Mr. Chairman, this bill does have a lot of good things in it. It includes one thing that I did not mention, that we are asking the Architect of the Capitol to contract out the management of the Capitol power plant as a private entity. We are doing that in the spirit of how can we lead the way to continue to make the Capitol a little more efficient. We are also asking for a review of the legislative branch agencies. Some of the heads of these agencies are appointed by the President. Some have a 10-year term. Some have a 14-year term. Some have the approval of the Senate. Some have the approval of the Senate and the House. We just think that it is time to review some of these things. They have a different retirement program. There are a lot of proposals out there. The Capitol Hill Police Chief, for example, for whom I have a lot of respect, has suggested that we build a wall around the U.S. Capitol. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), among others, has made sure that we have language in our bill to say that we do not want a wall around the U.S. Capitol compound. We want people to be able to get in here. We have taken a look at everything under our jurisdiction in a very serious way and just asked the questions, can we do it better? I will submit many of the changes that we have recommended for the record. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another distinguished member of the subcommittee who is also a former staffer, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said, and has worked on not just the issue of quality of life for staffers and the gym but also one that has to do with our security around here, the Capitol Hill police, the use of horses, among other things.

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.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have a lot of good things in this bill. We had some good subcommittee-and committee-level debates and a number of amendments. One such amendment actually encourages Members of Congress to lease or use hybrid fuel-efficiency cars. This amendment was debated and offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and successfully put on it. He is here, and he is going to address that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond to my friend from California a little bit. Number one, this, as we all know, is an appropriation bill; and the proper place to deal with a franking issue, of course, would be on an authorizing bill. I hope that our friend is taking his concerns to the proper committee, which would be the Committee on House Administration. But I also wanted to say, in the spirit of good government, what I would like to see is Members of Congress and the institution going out into America, into the States a little bit more. As I understand it, talking to some committee chairmen, they actually use this franking privilege in their field hearings. I sit on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I used to be on the Committee on Agriculture. What is more important than our food policy out there? If we had the Committee on Agriculture going out and talking about the dairy program or the peanut program or whatever, sending out letters to people to say, come to this congressional hearing that is going to be in your neighborhood, come raise Cain with your Congressman, I think that would be a good thing. Certainly the Committee on Ways and Means, the taxing committee, my folks down in the little briar patch that I represent would love to go out and, frankly, raise hell with everybody that writes our tax policy. Then there is the Committee on Energy and Commerce. They control telecommunications. We passed several years ago the slamming bill. That is something that I know has affected a lot of people. If there was an opportunity for the common, everyday citizen to go to a field hearing and raise Cain about how slamming was done on their phone service, I think that would be a healthy thing. I am not sure that a $25,000 limit would be good enough to have people come, but I think what we need is more sunshine and more public input. That is why I am hesitant to accept the $25,000 limit just on face value because I know that these notices are important. But I also know, Mr. Chairman, that the committees who use these have them signed off by the minority and the majority party and so there is a system of fairness. Again, in terms of fiscal restraint, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for getting an endorsement from the National Taxpayers Union, but I also want to say that this bill, we are very happy to say, is flat funding, if not a little less than last year. So we are with him at least on that angle. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who has come up through the ranks as a former staffer and worked very hard and continues to work hard on staff quality of life. One of the issues that we are facing, we lose lots of staff here on Capitol Hill. The gentleman from Illinois has worked tirelessly to protect the quality of life for somebody who works here.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).

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. What was your specialty?

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

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. 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. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to underscore that. I have some of Mr. Edwards' rating groups, and the gentleman has established already that Mr. Kerry is more liberal than Mr. Kennedy, with a 97 percent liberal rating compared to Mr. Kennedy's 88 percent. But here was NARL, which is the National Abortion Rights League, they gave Mr. Edwards 100 percent for the last 4 years in a row. The National Right to Life has given him a 0. The AFL-CIO prounion vote, 100 percent for the last 3 years. The Federal Employees Union, 91 percent, then 100 percent, 100 percent. National Taxpayers Union, Mr. Edwards, 22 percent, but that is up from 12 percent 3 years ago; Americans for Tax Reform, 0 percent, down from 5 percent last year; and then Citizens Against Government Waste, 13 percent in terms of being probusiness. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, small businesses, has given Mr. Edwards a 0 percent. Privately, if one shows up, they get a 70 percent on their rating, but he has got a 0 percent. U.S. Chamber of Commerce has given Mr. Edwards 15 percent. Why are these important? These are important because these are folks who help job creation, job impact, and if we are interested in jobs, we do not want somebody with a 15 percent U.S. Chamber rating and a 0 percent National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Mr. KINGSTON. And at the same time blocked the energy bill that would have given us more affordable energy in alternative energy sources, fuel cell, hydrogen cell research and a lot of good stuff. He helped block that bill because the travelers did not like it.

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. Let us yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) a minute. He wanted to talk.

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. 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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight Friday, July 2, 2004, to file a privileged report, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put in my comments on this very good debate here, and it is a debate that is good, because it shows clashing two philosophies: one of higher taxes for more spending, versus lower taxes for more private sector growth, more jobs through the private sector. The proposal in front of us today is for a $270 billion tax increase over a 10-year period of time. So taxes would go up in a fashion like that, $270 billion; and the justification that we are hearing is so that we can spend more money. But I want to say this as a fiscal conservative: if you look at what we have been doing since 1994, we have in fact been spending a lot of money, and, ironically, in the very areas where we are being accused of not spending enough. But this is a Committee on the Budget chart, and it shows since 1994 how much our spending has in fact increased. We are being accused of not spending enough on education; but here is one education program alone, title I. Since 1999, it has gone up this much, nearly, I am going to guess, about $6 billion. The exact math is available, but I just want to show the chart to illustrate. Pell grant funding, an important scholarship program, has increased in a similar fashion of about maybe $5 billion. The gentleman from Iowa can correct me if my quick, on-the-spot-math is wrong. No Child Left Behind. The irony about No Child Left Behind, an important Bush initiative on education, is we hear a lot of critics say, you are not funding it. Yet look at No Child Left Behind. Growth in education under President Bush has increased 40 percent. Special education, something that has a lot of bipartisan support, since 1999 we have gone from about $4 billion in spending to nearly $12 billion in spending. So where is the cut in education? There is not one to show. Veterans programs. Often the liberals hide behind veterans programs and say, you are not spending enough. But here, again, since 1985 to 2004, budget authority has gone from $27 billion to $60 billion. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) have worked hard to champion that and done it on a good bipartisan basis. Spending per veteran during that period of time has gone from $950 to $2,400. Veterans spending has in fact increased. Another criticism we are getting is spending to combat terrorism has not increased. Here we are, from 2001, spending about $20 billion, to $87 billion today. So where are these cuts that we are suffering from? There are not any cuts. Now, as I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I wish these charts did go in a different direction in many cases. I wish that I could honestly be accused of cutting a lot of government programs. Unfortunately, we failed in that. But the will of the House, the will of the Senate takes a long time for the process to go through. I am just saying that the spending cuts are not there. But who do we propose to get the income from? We keep hearing about these big, bad, horrible people called millionaires in American society today. Let us examine who these millionaires are. These millionaires, for the most part, are small business owners; people who are farmers, people who own bicycle shops, people who are contractors. They have $1 million in revenue, and therefore they are taxed in the 35 percent bracket. How many? Is that just a few? Hardly. It is 73 percent of them. What about in the group that earns from $200,000 to $499,000? 68 percent. What about in the big bad group that grosses from $500,000 to $1 million? 76 percent. And $1 million in revenue and above, 82 percent of them are small business owners. So what are we talking about doing? What we are talking about doing is beating up on the small employers out there, the folks who are turning this economy around. Here we are looking at the job charts, what is happening in the economy. Right now we have nearly 140 million Americans working, the highest level in history. Yet we want to reverse that trend by killing the goose that is laying the golden egg, and that is the small business owner. If you are for jobs, the correct vote on this is ``no.'' If you want to kill economic prosperity, if you want to kill the small business employer, if you want to kill jobs, vote ``yes,'' because that is exactly what will happen.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Nussle budget reform proposal, but I do so with great respect for the Committee on the Budget and his leadership on that, and I want to say that this is the proper discussion and a discussion which we should be having. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I see it a little bit differently. I think that we are both going towards the same goal, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations; yet we are taking a different course. What our concern is about is the so-called statutory caps in the Nussle proposal give the executive branch, the President, three different bites of the apple: one when he submits the budget, the next using his veto pen, and then another one forcing his will on Congress. He will very much be at the table. And as our Founding Fathers established the separation of powers, I believe that there should be a little more than a philosophical firewall between the executive and the legislative branches. That is our view on it. I believe, as an alternative, what the Committee on Appropriations would like to see is a little more cross-pollination between the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations and perhaps the Committee on Ways and Means. I come from the State legislature. I was a member of the Ways and Means Committee of the Georgia legislature for 8 years, and it seemed ridiculous to me when I got here that we split up our budget process into three dynamic committees all with a point of view and yet none of them with the franchise and the final responsibility of getting the job done at the end of the day. I would like to see us work not just more closely with the Committee on the Budget but actually have some voting influence on each other, and I think there are some things that we can discuss in that vein. I am also a supporter of a bill by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that would set up a BRAC-type Base Realignment and Closure Commission for spending that would sort of pick up some pieces of some of the Grace Commission thoughts, but something of that nature where we could take a step outside the process and say, okay, how do we get this together? Another alternative is the Istook Balanced Budget Amendment, which I have supported. We need to get that on the floor. We need to get the other body to pass it and the President to put it into law. We also need to have good old-fashioned fiscal discipline. As the chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee, I am proud I have worked with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). We brought in a level funding bill this year; and in addition to that, we had a lot of other reforms, some outsourcing, some privatization, some reduction of committee spending and agency spending, some cuts, real cuts. Not just reductions in the projected increase, but less money than last year. We did that after a lot of debate back and forth. We want the other body to hold the spending on this. I believe that we as a legislative body could have even more cuts. We offered other amendments for cuts, and they were not approved by the committee. But perhaps on the floor we can get those done. We are in the same church. We are only in a different pew when it comes to controlling spending.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, while there is still a lot of work left to do in Iraq, it is very significant that on June 30, the new government takes over. This is a step that is largely accepted by the international community as a good thing. Progress is being made, but America is still going to have to stay in there for security reasons to help rebuild the infrastructure and to get the international community to continue to support the new government. We need to stick together on this. Meanwhile, domestically the economy is picking up. Three hundred thousand jobs were created last month. It bring us to, I believe, something like 900,000 jobs this year. Huge economic growth, lots of opportunities are out there. For our senior citizens, Medicare cards are now available that give up to a 20 to 25 percent discount on prescription drugs, very helpful for those who are on a fixed income and those who are in retirement. This administration has taken significant steps to continue to make America strong and free internationally and domestically and while not turning our backs on those who need the most help. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Bush administration for a job well done.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last week on the evening news, Dan Rather, nicknamed ``Rather Biased'' by those of us who are conservative or those of us who just like fair reporting in general, spent 2 minutes reporting a story about 1,300 layoffs in Ohio. That certainly is something that is of concern, and yet at the same time he only spent 20 seconds reporting that 947,000 new jobs have been created in the last 3 months. I realize that the media loves to dwell on the negative, but they also completely can ignore the fact that the unemployment rate is down to 5.6 percent, which is a lower rate than it averaged in 1970s, 1980s and 1990s; home ownership has risen to its highest level at 68 percent; and real disposable income is up nearly 4 percent this year. The economy is coming back and coming back strong, and yet the media still wants to dwell on the negative. But then again it is no surprise. Their real goal is not journalism, but to get John Kerry elected president. No wonder Fox, ``fair and balanced news,'' has come on as one of the strongest cable networks that there is, Mr. Speaker. I think Americans have absolutely had enough with biased, liberal, shoddy reporting.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I first heard about Ronald Reagan in probably 1970, when Joan Baez, on my Woodstock album, referred to the Governor of California as Ron Ray Gun. And this was a young person, so I thought if Joan Baez is against him, it is probably a good thing. Yet as I went through my years and got in college, I had an opportunity to hear Mr. Reagan speak at the Kansas City Republican convention in 1976. And in his concession speech on the nomination going to Gerald Ford, he gave a great speech and he talked about what we have to do as Americans to preserve the great life-style that we live. I was very impressed with that speech. So in 1980, when he ran for President and was the nominee, certainly I was very enthusiastically in support of him. He was elected in a year when we had hostages in Iran, the economy was in the tank, and the spirit of America was in the doldrums. He won by a landslide, with great expectations, though, and a great mandate. He needed to cut taxes, and he did. He moved along and created an economy that gave 19 million new jobs over the next 8 years. Inflation was reduced, as well as interest rates. He built defense to the extent that we got over, finally, Vietnam. He talked about things like the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union and peace through strength. And he said things that were politically incorrect at the time, like ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,'' even though people in our own party did not like him saying those things. He was very basic. Nancy Reagan led the Just Say No to Drugs campaigns, and I think it was very effective in getting young people to think twice about it. He had that Irish twinkle in his eye. And when he got shot, even though it was a very serious wound, he said, gee, I hope you are all Republicans. He had that kind of calmness and happiness about him as he went through things. And I, as so many young people, were inspired by him. So when I ran for the State legislature in 1984, I pulled out a photograph that Libby, my wife, and I had taken with Ronald Reagan in 1980, and I ran an ad that said, ``Reagan/Kingston: Face it, we need conservatives at all levels of government.'' But I believe that was a key factor in helping me. He had those kind of coattails. He believed in family, America. He loved Nancy. He showed us a husband-and-wife relationship at its finest. He was kind. The Carter-Reagan, Mondale-Reagan campaigns were not nasty, mean or vicious. In fact, he would say to Jimmy Carter if he disagreed with some of Mr. Carter's facts, ``There you go again.'' He liked joke-telling and told the jokes about the Soviet Union and got his point across, but when he was in the Oval Office, he always wore his coat out of respect for the Oval Office and the office of the Presidency. In his final speech as he left Washington, D.C., he said, and I quote, ``As I walk off the city streets, my final words to the men and women of the Reagan revolution: My friends, we did it. We were not just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city freer and left her in good hands.'' The lights of this city shine, but the future will burn brightly because of men and the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, on this day of Memorial, I rise in honor of the soldiers and airmen in my district who were killed while fighting to stamp out the tyranny of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. They died while protecting freedom and liberty--and for the hope of democracy. Their purpose was just, and we are deeply indebted to them. These brave soldiers were uniquely courageous--they gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and our Nation will forever honor them. Our thoughts and prayers are continually with their families and loved ones. As a humble token of my appreciation, I recognize them and request that their names be submitted to the Congressional Record to demonstrate our permanent gratitude: Captain Tristan N. Aitken, United States Army, age 31, from Savannah, GA, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery. He died on April 4, 2003. Captain Edward J. Korn, United States Army, age 31, from Savannah, GA, assigned to 2nd Armored Tank Battalion, Fort Knox, KY. He died on April 3, 2003. Sergeant First Class Wilbert Davis, United States Army, age 40, from Hinesville, GA, assigned to 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor, 3rd Infantry Division. He died on April 3, 2003. Sergeant First Class Ricky L. Crockett, United States Army, age 38, from Broxton, GA, assigned to Company D, 51st Signal Battalion, 35th Signal Brigade. He died on January 12, 2004. Staff Sergeant Nathaniel Hart Jr., United States Army, Age 29, from Valdosta, GA, assigned to the 416th Transportation Company, 260th Quartermaster Battalion. He died on July 28, 2003. Technical Sergeant Bruce E. Brown, United States Air Force, age 32, from Coatopa, AL, assigned to Robins at 78th Air Base Wing Logistics Readiness Squadron. He died on September 3, 2003. Sergeant David T. Nutt, United States Army, age 32, from Blackshear, GA, assigned to the 494th Transportation Company. He died on May 14, 2003. Specialist Christopher J. Holland, United States Army, age 26, from Brunswick, GA, assigned to Battery A, 4th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Armored Division. He died on December 17, 2003. Private Benjamin L. Freeman, age 19, from Valdosta, GA, assigned to K Troop, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. He died on October 13, 2003. Senior Airman Jason Cunningham, age 26, from Camarillo, CA, Pararescueman, 38th Rescue Squadron, Moody AFB. He died March 5, 2002. Lt. Col. John Stein, age 39, from Bardolph, IL, HH-60 pilot, 41st Rescue Squadron, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003. 1st Lt. Tamara Archuleta, age 23, from Los Lunas, NM, HH-60 Copilot, 41st RQS, Moody AFB. Lt. Archuleta died on March 23, 2003. Staff Sgt. John Teal, age 29, from Dallas, TX, HH-60 Flight Engineer, 41st RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003. Staff Sgt. Jason Hicks, age 25, from Jefferson, SC, HH-60 Flight Engineer, 41th RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003. Master Sgt. Michael Maltz, Pararescueman, age 42, from St. Petersburg, FL, 38th RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003. Senior Airman Jason Plite, Pararescueman, age 21, from Lansing, MI, 38th RQS, Moody AFB. He died on March 23, 2003. Specialist Edward John Anguiano, United States Army, age 24, from Brownsville, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on March 23, 2003. Specialist Gregory Paul Sanders, United States Army, age 19, from Hobart, IN, Fort Stewart. He died on March 24, 2003. Sergeant Roderic Antoine Solomon, United States Army, age 32, from Fayetteville, NC, Fort Stewart. He died on March 28, 2003. Private First Class Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon, United States Army, age 20, from Palm Bay, FL, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003. Corporal Michael Edward Curtin, United States Army, age 23, from Howell, NJ, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003. Private First Class Diego Fernando Rincon, United States Army, age 19, from Conyers, GA, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003. Sergeant Eugene Williams, United States Army, age 24, from Highland, NY, Fort Stewart. He died on March 29, 2003. Staff Sergeant George Edward Buggs, United States Army, age 31, from Barnwell, SC, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003. Private First Class Wilfred Daveyrussell Bellard, United States Army, age 20, from Lake Charles, LA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003. Specialist Daniel Francis Cunningham Jr., United States Army, age 33, from Lewiston, ME, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003. Private Devon Dimilo Jones, United States Army, age 19, from San Diego, CA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003. Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, United States Army, age 33, from Tampa, FL, Fort Stewart. He died on April 4, 2003. Staff Sergeant Stevon Alexander Booker, United States Army, age 34, from Apollo, PA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 5, 2003. Staff Sergeant Lincoln Daniel Hollinsaid, United States Army, age 27, from Malden, IL, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003. First Lieutenant Jeffrey J. Kaylor, United States Army, age 24, from Clifton, VA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003. Private First Class Anthony Scott Miller, United States Army, age 19, from San Antonio, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003. Specialist George A. Mitchell Jr., United States Army, age 35, from Rawlings, MD, Fort Stewart. He died on April 7, 2003. Sergeant Henry Levon Brown, United States Army, age 22, from Natchez, MS, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003. Sergeant First Class John Winston Marshall, United States Army, age 50, from Los Angeles, CA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003. Private First Class Jason Michael Meyer, United States Army, age 23, from Swartz Creek, MI, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003. Staff Sergeant Robert Anthony Stever, United States Army, age 36, from Pendleton, OR, Fort Stewart. He died on April 8, 2003. Private First Class Marlin Tyrone Rockhold, United States Army, age 23, from Hamilton, OH, Fort Stewart. He died on May 8, 2003. Sergeant Michael Tyron Crockett, United States Army, age 27, from Soperton, GA, Fort Stewart. He died on July 14, 2003. Specialist Joel Lin Bertoldie, United States Army, age 20, from Independence, MO, Fort Stewart. He died on July 18, 2003. Private First Class Charles Marques Sims, United States Army, age 18, from Miami, FL, Fort Stewart. He died on October 3, 2003. Specialist Andrew Lee Tuazon, United States Army, age 29, from Chesapeake, VA, Fort Stewart. He died on May 10, 2004. Captain James F. Howard, United States Army, age 21, from Springfield VA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003. Specialist Matthew George Boule, United States Army, age 22, from Dracut, MA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003. Chief Warrant Officer Four Eric Nders Halvorsen, United States Army, age 40, from Bennington, VT, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003. Chief Warrant Officer Two Scott Jamar, United States Army, age 32, from Abilene, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003. Sergeant Michael Francis Pederson, United States Army, age 26, from Flint, MI, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003. Chief Warrant Officer Three Eric Allen Smith, United States Army, age 41, from Rochester, NY, Fort Stewart. He died on April 2, 2003. Specialist Ryan Gene Carlock, United States Army, age 25, from Macomb, IL, Fort Stewart. He died on September 9, 2003. Private Gregory Paul Huxley Jr., United States Army, age 19, from Forestport, NY, Fort Stewart. He died on April 6, 2003. Private Kelley Stephen Prewitt, United States Army, age 24, from Birmingham, AL, Fort Stewart. He died on April 6, 2003. Sergeant Terry Wayne Heminway, United States Army, from Willingboro, NJ, Fort Stewart. He died on April 10, 2003. First Sergeant Joe Jesus Garza, United States Army, age 43, from Robstown, TX, Fort Stewart. He died on April 28, 2003. Sergeant Todd James Robbins, United States Army, age 33, from Hart, MI, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003. Sergeant First Class Randall Scott Rehn, United States Army, age 36, from Longmont, CO, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003. Specialist Donald Samuel Oaks Jr., United States Army, age 20, from Erie, PA, Fort Stewart. He died on April 3, 2003. Private First Class Jeremiah David Smith, United States Army, age 25, from Independence, KS, Fort Stewart. He died on May 27, 2003.