Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, now, let us just kind of go back in time. Suppose it is August 2001, and a Member of Congress is speaking to a Rotary Club or something and says, listen, there is a guy out there, a known terrorist named Osama bin Laden. He has a group called al-Qaeda, and they have found sanctuary and training opportunities inside the corrupt Taliban government of Afghanistan. Now, I am telling you here and now, in August 2001, ladies and gentlemen, we need to instruct the President of the United States and instruct the CIA to take him out. We need to work with maybe an international coalition to get rid of this guy. Now, if a Member of Congress had been saying that 13 months ago, he would have been laughed at, he would have been ridiculed, and he would have been called a warmonger and, yet, how right that statement would have been 13 months ago. Now, are we not in the same position? We have Saddam Hussein, he hates America, he harbors terrorists, he has been directly and indirectly involved with all kinds of terrorist activity, many against America, all around the globe. Is it not prudent to take the course of action that our President is doing? Mr. Speaker, this is not time for partisanship or cowering behind whatever boundaries or ideas that one has; this is time to put our best thoughts together and work together as a Nation, as Democrats and Republicans, and bring America's interest first to the floor of this House and get behind the President of the United States.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of many of the things that we have accomplished in the 107th Congress. On the House side, we have passed lots of legislation, from homeland security to pension reform to cracking down on corporate fraud and misdeeds. We have done a lot of things. Plus, we have passed a budget. Unfortunately, in a bicameral legislative body, there needs to be a budget on both sides to get things moving. Here an example of some of things that we have done: the House has voted to end the death tax. Just ending it alone would create 200,000 jobs in America. To say we do not need that, to say that is not important is ridiculous. It increases household savings due to the lower prices by $800 to $3,000 a year. The American people want the death tax cut made permanent. The President is waiting to sign this bill. Making it permanent gives people something that they can count on, some dependability. The House passed this several months ago. The fact is the Senate has not acted on House legislation to permanently repeal the death tax. Unfortunately, that is not the only thing: welfare reform. 14 million people used to be on welfare. It has dropped now to 5 million people. Five million people. We are still working on it, but just think about it, 9 million people are now working and productive citizens. The American people want welfare reform, and they want us to continue; but the fact is the Senate has not acted on welfare reform legislation that the House passed months ago. Another fact, the Senate has not acted on this legislation. There are only 11 days remaining before the historic 1996 reforms expire on September 30. This is not a good way to conduct business in this town; and this is one thing that the American people want, is us working together and passing this legislation and getting it to the President.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, on this day I believe we have the duty to remember all the ones who died on 9/11 and all the ones who have died in Afghanistan and elsewhere as a result of this war on terrorism. As one stares at Ground Zero today, it looks like any other large building construction site in any other large city in America. There is raw dirt, a fenced perimeter, earth moving equipment going about and hard hat workers milling to and fro, and if you didn't know better you'd keep driving by. But upon close inspection, you notice all the buildings around it have brand new facades, you notice also a new bike path, you notice the road has been redone and much of the surrounding infrastructure. Then you notice another building, an historic building, that was located right next door; it's covered with soot, its windows are cracked and it's still boarded up. This building makes a quiet but solemn statement that sets the tone because as you look at this site you know that it's not just any other construction site, there is an eerie stillness about it. Rudy Giuliani has called it a cemetery but it's more than that; it's a battleground, just like Manassas or Gettysburg. A great battle has been fought here and the feeling of reverence one gets is universal. Like all Americans, I remember that morning's events. I was in Washington, D.C. As we watched in disbelief the horror of New York City, we were soon disrupted by an explosion at the Pentagon. We evacuated our building, and went onto a chaotic street scene, where we were told that the Capitol was under attack, that the Mall area had been hit, the State Department and the Sears Tower. Later that night, Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol and sang ``God Bless America.'' It was a moving American moment. Later in the week, Congress attended a church service at the National Cathedral with Presidents Carter, Ford, Bush, and Clinton. President George W. Bush spoke, as did Billy Graham. Then, on Sept. 20, President Bush addressed the nation. The sense of Americanism had never been stronger. But of all these moments and all these experiences, none struck me, nor it seems anyone else in America, as deeply as the photos and images of the firefighters and policemen rushing up the steps of the World Trade Center at 9:30 the morning of the attack. It was there and then at that moment that Osama Bin Laden was defeated. He had underestimated the American spirit as these brave men rushed to rescue people that they did not know, people who they did not see socially, people who probably would not even eat lunch with them, and yet they were Americans, and that was all that counted to the hundreds of firefighters, police officers and public safety workers who put their lives on the line. Of the hundreds that died, many people don't know that sixty of them were off-duty. One such fireman had a nine o'clock tee time on the golf course. He was already on the golf course, in anticipation of a joyful day of golf, when he heard the news. Without even calling in, he threw the clubs in the trunk of his car and drove to the precinct to report. His body was found at four o'clock that afternoon. At another fire station, six men were getting off duty having pulled an all night shift. Their fresh replacements were just finishing up with breakfast when the alarm sounded. The six new ones and the six off duty all jumped on board the fire truck and, of the twelve of them, not one made it back. Such was the spirit the of volunteerism that day. In fact, one precinct asked the Mayor's office to quit sending the call for more recruits since they were already too crowded with men and women who had stepped forward to answer the call. On this day of observance, we should remember this lesson about being on and off-duty. For freedom does not wait for the on-duty only. If you and I are to preserve and protect freedom for the generations to come we must do it 24 hours a day 7 days a week. That is the best way to commemorate those who died on September 11, and our soldiers who have died in Afghanistan and everyone else who has suffered and sacrificed for this great land of liberty.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I was going to let the gentleman from Arkansas continue.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is rather straightforward. It has to do with a move to move the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center from the Department of Treasury into the Department of Justice. This move, which was not requested by the White House and not requested by the Select Committee on Homeland Security, but apparently suggested by the Committee on the Judiciary, caught me off guard as the representative who represents the headquarters of FLETC at Glynco, Brunswick, Georgia. This is the law enforcement training center which trains the Capitol Hill Police, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and many others, in fact, 74 total government agencies. One of the things I have found during my 10 years I have had the honor of representing it is, because there are 74 agencies, lots of people have ideas about just peeling off one of those agencies and putting their training in their own district or one particular area. What I have been concerned about is the Treasury has been a great balancing ground for the smaller agencies to train in, and if we move it to the Department of Justice and they are competing with the FBI, they become somewhat of a second-tier emphasis for the Department of Justice. So I am concerned about that move. What my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it simply says if you do that move that the ongoing training will continue, and it will continue in the facilities which are in Maryland and in New Mexico and in Georgia. So it is very straightforward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record some comments on the question of moving FLETC out of Treasury into the Department of Justice. background FLETC was established as a Treasury bureau in 1970 through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the heads of eight Federal agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General. This decision was made based upon years of thorough research that established the need to consolidate our federal law enforcement training, counteracting the trend towards proliferating and redundant law enforcement training throughout the government. Congress supported this decision by funding the construction of facilities for FLETC in Glynco, Georgia. Since its inception in 1970, FLETC has almost tripled its original 30,000 trainees and now houses around 80 agencies. The efficiency of a consolidated training site has benefited both the American taxpayer as well as every agency involved, a fact which goes unquestioned. The centralized site at Glynco has ensured that our federal law enforcement agents continued to get the best training available from the best teachers while eliminating the red undancy in infrastructure that multiple sites would provide. why fletc should stay in treasury The President's Homeland Security Department proposal consists of nine agencies with law enforcement/security functions. All nine (Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Border Patrol, Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, United States Coast Guard, United States Customs Service, United States Secret Service, and GSA Federal Protection Services) are participants in FLETC and will account for sixty-nine of the students and 55 percent of the student weeks projections identified for FY 2003. Although many associate our federal law enforcement with the DOJ, DOJ will merely make up 7 percent of FLETC students. Transferring FLETC to the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not serve to streamline any operations within our government. FLETC should remain within the Department of Treasury with a guarantee that the agencies that are transferring continue their training agreements with the Treasury Department. historical details about why fletc has remained in treasury In the past, there have been many attempts by the Justice Department to absorb FLETC, usually in conjunction with a new administration coming to power. Each time, a proper study was conducted and the findings concluded that such a move was not in the best interests of our Federal law enforcement. When FLETC was established, there was a discussion over who should be in charge of the new Center. Treasury seemed logical, because they were the only agency with experience with consolidated law enforcement training, they would be the largest customer of the CFLETC (providing about 40 percent of the students). No other agency seemed interested, or ready to assume the task. The CFLETC would be overseen by a multi- agency Board of Directors, they believed that each agency would have appropriate input as to its operation. In fact, Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General at the time concluded that, ``The Attorney General basically objects to the center being located in a line agency because the agency will begin to dominate the training staff and curriculum and secondarily a better law enforcement image can emerge if training is centered in a non-enforcement agency.'' Phillip Hughes, then Director on the Bureau of the Budget (which would eventually become OPM) worried that ``Concentration of additional control over Federal law enforcement programs in the Department of Justice may raise opposition from Congress and the public through fear of the eventual emergence of a national police force.'' Others concurred and expressed their belief that widening the law enforcement footprint of a Justice Department that was already under criticism from some circles for having both enforcement and prosecution authority vested in the same agency. The issue of Justice Department control did not resurface until 1976, when the FLETC had a new name and a new headquarters in Glynco, Georgia. Many of the existing participant agencies expressed concerns about the increasingly active and aggressive Justice Department role on the Board of Directors and the growing numbers of Justice students. Again, concerns relating to the establishment of a national police force were expressed. Large numbers of additional agencies were applying for entry as consolidated training participants. No single watershed event defused the tension. Instead, the FLETC simply redoubled its efforts to meet the needs of each customer, distributed scarce resources in an equitable and rational manner, and above all, dedicated itself to training excellence. The concerns gradually subsided. Halfway through President Carter's administration, the President's reorganization project for federal law enforcement reached a tentative conclusion that the FLETC should be transferred to the Justice Department. Unwilling to lose one of Treasury's most successful bureaus, Treasury officials lobbied hard against any such transfer. And once again, other participating agencies expressed concern over the notion of Justice's stewardship of the FLETC. This time, the issue was resolved by strengthening the role of the Board of Directors, establishing three standing management committees (for budget and personnel, policy and program development, and longrange planning), and including the Justice's Criminal Division on the board in an observer and advisory role. The new board structure confirmed what the board members had campaigned for all along. Treasury might have organizational stewardship over the Center, but FLETC belonged to all the agencies, large and small. The board members would not be ignored nor would they allow either Treasury or Justice to overlook their interests--and their interest in the Center. Consolidated training meant not just common training, but joint management, too. Early in President Reagan's tenure, Justice officials seriously considered an effort to gain management control of the Center. Attorney General William French Smith agreed to support the concept if Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan would not oppose it. When Regan resisted the idea, it was dropped. Throughout the 1980's, Justice periodically sent out feelers to gauge the reaction to bringing the FLETC into the Justice fold. Frank Keating, a former FBI agent, assistant secretary of Treasury and then as associate attorney general, saw the relationship between the two departments from both perspectives. Convinced that the Center properly belonged under Treasury, partly because it thrived there and partly because he philosophically supported the diffusion of federal law enforcement, Keating resisted the idea of Justice making a steal. ``. . . I know that on a number of occasions [as associate attorney general] the senior levels of the Justice Department and the FBI talked to me . . . of the need to merge FLETC into Justice.'' . . . In his view, FLETC belonged in Treasury. ``It makes far more sense to have a viable law enforcement training center than has no connection with the FBI.'' Keating strongly believed, ``because the missions of the smaller agencies, even though they are distinct, would be clouded, and their self-respect and their confidence and their ability to run themselves would be jeopardized by this nine-thousand pound gorilla coming down there to take over.'' The sporadic, almost half-hearted suggestions that Justice take over the training were tributes to the Center's success, the result of envy more than anything else. They sprang, too, from a superficial analysis that Justice's primary in federal law enforcement led logically to management of law enforcement training. Such a conclusion, however persuasive on its face, essentially ignored the historical forces that planted the Center squarely--and firmly--under Treasury. Again, earlier this year, the administration looked into moving FLETC to Justice. After extensive studies, the bush administration decided that it would not be in their best interests. where did this request come from? The Justice Department has made repeated attempts to take FLETC from Treasury, but each and every time, and after extensive reviews those attempts were thwarted. The decision to more FLETC from the Department of Treasury to the Department of Justice has been made without the benefit of hearings, studies or analysis. In fact, all past studies have concluded that FLETC should remain with the Treasury Department. A recent Bush Administration study concurred that FLETC should remain in Treasury. The Bush Administration did not request this in their Department of Homeland Security proposal. Treasury did not propose FLETC's transfer. FLETC did not request this transfer. Homeland Security did not offer this proposal. Department of Justice did not request this either. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make this last comment. Mr. Chairman, I want to do what is best for homeland security; I want to do what is best for the training center and best for the law enforcement personnel. I just have not been convinced that the case has been made to move it out of Treasury into Justice, when most of the training is actually going to be done in homeland security. So I hope that the conferees work on that. If the gentleman from Texas can give me some assurance, some comfort level in conference, I would love to hear it.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, back in April 24 when the House Republicans passed Financial Accountability we had three main points to it. Number one, disclosure of facts. Disclosure of facts to employees, to shareholders, to anyone who may have something at stake that there are some problems, so that people can make intelligently investment decisions. Number two, if you break the law you are going to jail. We have laws against robbing banks, but people still rob banks, but when they do we put them in jail. There is no difference when you steal somebody's pension plan, you are stealing money. You ought to go to jail. You do not have the guts of somebody who would grab a purse and do it in person. You do it behind the cloak of corporate secrecy, behind the cloak of some accounting firm that you are in cahoots with. But if you are caught, you are going to jail. Number three, if you are the CEO of some big corporation and you have done this, you do not get to retire in your mansion. You do not get to go off to your mountain home. In fact, you get to be a guest of the government inside a penitentiary. That is what we are after. Let me say this: We need to bring the ethics of Main Street to Wall Street. It is time to have corporate accountability and pass a Republican plan.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I think in so many ways this debate is about our government versus their government, and our government is about democracy. It is about a republic. Their government is about really one guy basically, Fidel Castro. What is wrong with him? Well, let us just start with the fact that he came into power by hoodwinking people, by stealing hotels, properties, and in many cases, breaking up families and executing many of them. He is pro-communism, he is anti-American, and the other thing is he is bankrupt. In Cuba right now, their debt is $11 billion. Venezuela, one of their strongest allies, suspended oil shipments based on the fact that Cuba owes them $63 million. Right now, Cuba owes Russia $20 billion. Now, when you get in a position like this and you are not exactly a Sunday school teacher from next door, you are liable to cut some deals with some unsatisfactory characters. That is what this is about. This is not about your good constituents or my good constituents going to Cuba. Indeed, last year alone 156,000 Americans went to Cuba. This is about people that you want to keep track on that might be going over there to hide, just like an old outlaw post. Here is a quote from Castro that gives his sentiments. This, by the way, is from May 10, 2001, just on the eve of 9/11. ``Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weak and we are witnessing this weakness from close- up.'' Why would you say that if you are pro-American? What interest that would be pro-American that would say you would bring America to its knees? That is a statement of war. It is a statement of antagonism. Let us add on these statements. Here is something from John Bolton, the Under Secretary for Arms Control. ``Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue States like Iran, probably Iraq, probably Syria, probably a dozen others that we do not know about. We are concerned that such technology could support bioweapons programs in those States.'' So you have got a guy who is a one-man dictatorship, a guy who is bankrupt, a guy who is anti-American, and a guy who is developing biological weapons to probably be used to ``bring America to its knees.'' Why do we want to be the first one to blink? That is what this is about. Why are we blinking first? Castro is on his way out. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) last year probably has done some humanitarian good, although it is hard to say, because I know when we go over there, we get filtered information. But why do we want to start giving him a money train called tourism? I know about the tourism game. I represent coastal Georgia. It is our number one industry from Savannah to Saint Simons to the Sea Islands, all over. Tourism is a money train. Why do we want to give it to Fidel Castro? Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose a friend, but I do urge my colleagues to enthusiastically vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for pointing that out. We do, of course, want to keep the physical plant, the jobs, and all the related benefits in Brunswick, Georgia, as part of it; but also I want to say it is not just that. It is that inside of FLETC there is a lot of angst and concern about moving it from the Department of Treasury to the Department of Justice, and we have not seen any justification for doing that right now. So it is not purely provincial that I am pushing this.

Mr. KINGSTON. Once again, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend and thank him for his openness and look forward to the discussion with him and the chairman.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I wanted to say to the chairman and the gentleman from Texas that in terms of moving the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center out of the Department of the Treasury and into the Department of Justice, as somebody who represents a significant portion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the first I learned about that was actually this morning. And while there have been rumors about the Department of Justice's interest in FLETC, I have not seen any case made to make that transfer possible. So I would certainly oppose moving the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center out of the Department of the Treasury and strongly be opposed to it moving into the Department of Justice, based on the lack of information to make such a move; and I wanted to express that to the chairman.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about a proposal that we may have on the floor today to terminate some of the trade embargo between the United States and Cuba. Mr. Speaker, Cuba is not exactly your stereotypical, friendly next- door neighbor, and there are certain reasons why this island nation has the honor, a very dubious honor, I want to say, of being one of the seven terrorist-supporting nations in the world by the State Department. In fact, let me quote what our intelligence community says. ``The U.S. believes that Cuba has at least a limited, developmentally offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual use technology to rogue states. We are concerned that such technology could support biological warfare programs in these states.'' Now, easing this trade embargo would merely provide Castro the financial capital he needs to fund his reign of terrorism and abuse. It would be tragic if the legislative actions of this Congress helped finance any attack on its own citizens or any of the citizens around the world. Now is not the time for us to succumb to the wishes of a maniacal ruler and give in on our trade embargo. We have to keep the bar very, very high, because with the terrorist threat around the world, this is one neighbor we have to be mindful of.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of the rule and the bill itself. I want to say in this time of uncertainty when homeland security is foremost on everybody's mind and agenda, this bill is probably one of the more significant votes we will take this year. I have often heard Members say I am not going to vote for Treasury- Postal Service because it is Washington, it is bureaucratic, it is something that does not affect my constituents back home; but I want to remind Members about some of the important government functions that are in this bill. One of the examples is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which is in New Mexico and Georgia which trains 71 law enforcement agencies in the government, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Secret Service, the Capitol Hill police, who we know and love and work with every single day. All that training takes place because of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which is in this bill. In these times of homeland security, just look at all of the other things. I am going to sort of bounce around, but this bill affects the Treasury Department; Air Transportation Stabilization; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Bureau of Engraving and Printing; counterterrorism funding; and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Who would want to vote against that during these times? The Internal Revenue Service, and I can see why people may not be too fired up about that, but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, we need to have the IRS. Continuing on, the Interagency Crime Drug Enforcement Agency, the Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Mint, the United States Secret Service. Moving on, the White House is funded in this, and all of the security concerns of the White House to protect the President of the United States is in this bill. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. What I want to say, Is the rule perfect? No. In my 10th year in Congress, I can say that I have not seen a perfect rule yet. Despite the good work of our very capable Committee on Rules, it is not always the way I would write it. Is the bill perfect? Certainly not. There again, there are things I would change if I were the only Member of this 435 body. But to nitpick this bill and to nitpick this rule at this time is not the best thing in the security interests of our country because this, as I said before, is probably one of the number one homeland security votes we will take this year. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the rule, and certainly I am going to support the bill.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and as I sit here and listen to this bill, now going close to 24 hours, I am reminded of a Dr. Seuss character that I think was called a Push Me-Pull You. I do not really remember what it was all about, but it seemed to me that the character was unwilling to be pushed, unwilling to be pulled. I think that must be the description of the Interior bill; that it is a very delicately balanced bill, and we can push it one way, but it is not going to pass; or we can pull it another way, and it is not going to pass. That is why this is kind of a thin-ice situation here. There are a lot of good arguments for this, but put one more straw on the camel's back, and then we lose on our side 24 votes. Same way on the other side; they lose 25 votes. That is why I think it is important that we leave the language and the numbers where they are in this particular bill on this amendment. I support the arts, and I think everybody in Congress supports the arts. That is why it is very important to not confuse the NEA with the arts. We in Congress provide a $10 billion tax credit that is authorized for people who donate to art galleries and to art-related theaters and so forth. That is $10 billion. The Democrats are fond of saying how much is this costing? Well, $10 billion. What about all the art that the Federal Government purchases, the paintings in this Capitol? We just underwent a renovation of the rotunda. That is in support of the arts. What about art education? All the programs on the State level, on the local level, on the Federal level that we as taxpayers of America support the arts on? We are very pro art in America. But to confuse the NEA with the art statement of America is truly misleading. I believe that art is magical. I heard a songwriter say a good song takes you someplace else. And that is true, because, doggone it, I cannot drive my car without the radio going, because, Mr. Chairman, I do not always want to go to work. I like to hear the song about, I miss the planes out in Africa or the land down under in Australia. I think that is why we listen to music, because it does take us to a different place. When we look at this picture of Lafayette over here, and think about the inspiration of a great Frenchman who comes over here and fights for America during the Revolutionary War. We get inspired when we look at the portrait of George Washington with the sword carefully painted out to show that this is not an institution that uses violence but that we use the weapons of words to clash our ideas together. It is inspirational, as we look at the dynamics of both of these people, and to look up to the ceiling in the rotunda, and to think about a good drama that we all get invited to every now and then at JFK. It is truly inspirational. We need to all be protective of art. And I want to say that I think the NEA has gone a long way in kind of cleaning up their act. The NEA, I think, has come a long way. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has cited it well. And I can say that on our side of the aisle, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) knows, some of the strong offended feelings, and I saw it was included in this regarding some of the shenanigans of the NEA in the past, I have to say that, actually, it was cleaned up probably more by the Supreme Court than by Congress. I will yield to my friend in a minute, but as the gentleman remembers, it was the famous case of a woman who was dipped in chocolate, and the question was is that a proper use of the taxpayer dollars or should it be artistic freedom. I believe in artistic freedom, but let her leap in a whole vat of chocolate. I am all for it. A new definition of Hershey's Kisses. But when I am paying for it, or I am asking a guy who is driving a truck for $6 an hour back in Georgia, maybe we should not do that. Maybe we should just stick with the picture of the cow standing by the mill stream.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly why I bring it up, is to acknowledge the changes that have been made. And the gentleman and I have both sat through hearings, through Democrat and Republican administrators over there, and I think they have cleaned it up, and I am glad. Some of it has been with a hammer, some of it has been more willing, but a lot has gone on. I would also like them to continue to decentralize the NEA. I do think, and if I were the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) I would be pushing it hard, because so much of the money is concentrated in New England, but there is a lot of art outside of New York City. When these theater groups come down and they do a little ballet for the rural folks down home, and they say, well, we kept the hicks from the sticks happy, now we can go home, I do not think it is anything that great and wonderful. I would love to see the NEA have a distribution formula where they say we have to push that stuff out and distribute it more in Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, my point is NEA, I think, has moved forward in a good direction. Unlike years past when I have voted to cut the NEA, I will vote to support the NEA. But I know as the vice chairman of this committee, to put more money in it means that we are going to lose votes, so I must oppose this amendment. On the NEH, I am a big NEH supporter. I would support the NEH increase, but I cannot do it on the floor of the House because that is going to run off votes. I think there are some things to talk about in the process which I look forward to engaging in as the months go by. Right now, all of the issues that we have gotten together with the Westerners and the Easterners and the folks on Native American issues, we need to keep the precarious balance of this bill where it is because it is a Push Me-Pull You.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to make a few closing points that I think are very important. Number one, on the question of 1985, it has been called an arbitrary date. It is not an arbitrary date. That is the date of the electronic records. If my colleagues do not like the 1985 date, what date do they want? 1980, 1975, 1979? And then with that gap, what records will you have? If you have the records for the period prior to 1985 to any other date certain, please come up with it. Number two, this does not preclude claims that happened before 1985. It simply gets us started. Number three, we are looking at now making real progress, getting the job done, or at least taking the first very significant step at a cost of about $900 million versus a cost of $2.4 billion. Earlier, on this bill, last night, we had lots of debate and heartaches about the money this bill was spending. It seems odd to me that now people would say, well, let us just spend $1.5 billion. And that money, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has pointed out, may never get to the people who we all want to get the money to eventually. It has been said that the lawyers are not making money. Well, lawyers do tend to do things for a profit. The court monitors in 2001, for example, were paid about $342,000. The court monitor was paid $342,000 and the special master was paid $354,000. That is compensation well over $400,000 a year. So I think what was asserted earlier, that the lawyers are making money on this thing, I think is important to say. This committee has long stood up for Native Americans. This is the committee that funds the Native American programs. This is the committee that advocates for Native Americans, and it is in that regard that we are saying let us get this job started with the 1985 date, do a good job on those that we know are certain, and then go back. I want to point out that this bill has $2.9 billion for Indian health services, new hospitals, critical health care services, research on diabetes and treatment. It has $1.8 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' operation of Indian programs. That, Mr. Chairman, means education programs, money for new computers, money for new teachers, money for new transportation so school kids can get to schools. And, also, this bill, at the advocacy of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and many, many others, puts $22 million in Indian program increases, which will help build six new schools and continues critical hospital and clinic construction. This bill does a lot of things because this committee, on a bipartisan basis, does everything it can for our Native Americans.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, sometimes in this body we get to an issue that we want to flip a coin on and say, heads or tails, because we are genuinely confused. Sometimes that coin actually lands on the edge. I have to say to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona, as I listened to his arguments, as I know my own philosophy on Federal land acquisition, the coin lands on a clear message that he has. I am going to support the Shadegg amendment. I believe he has proven the case. I think this is a worthwhile amendment with sincere reasons. Should it fail, I will commit, as will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), that we are going to try to work this out in conference. Should it pass, I will try to protect it in conference. I think the gentleman has a good amendment, and he has raised some excellent points.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask to speak on the point. I just want to say I have read this amendment and listened to a lot of testimony over the past several years about the need to do this sort of thing in our forests. When you look at the common sense of preserving the life of the forest, the ecosystem and helping save human lives and dwellings, this is a reasonable, commonsense approach. I would ask my friend from California to reconsider the point of order simply because I do think this is something in the interest of forest management that our agencies need. I regret that the gentleman from Arizona did not have it in the committee because I think that we would certainly try to work with you on the committee. But I hope the gentleman will withdraw the point of order because I think this is common sense, and I am an Easterner, but I have lots of forests, tree farms, as we would call them in my district, and forest management is part of the responsibility and it is a great, I would say, intercourse between man and nature and great involvement. I think this is a good amendment. I hope that we can keep it in the bill and that the gentleman would withdraw his point.