Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this year the Republican Party has introduced and been pushing for the BEST agenda. B is for best, strongest military; E is for excellence in education, with local control, not Washington control; S is for saving Social Security; and T is for reducing taxes through spending reductions. Now, part of our planning under Social Security protection is the lockbox concept. What the lockbox says is that Congress will no longer mix Social Security money with general operating money. Just as businesses cannot mix pension plans with operating expenses, the U.S. Government needs to do the same thing. Put Social Security funds in a lockbox so that it will be there for retirement. That bill passed the House on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, Republicans and Democrats. Now it is in the other body. Hopefully they will bring it to the floor. It has been 70 days that they have drug this thing out. Now the President is in support of it. I ask the other body to please pass the lockbox and protect Social Security for the future.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we passed in the House a very, very significant bill. It had to do with the lockbox. What it did is it put the social security money basically off-budget so that we would not continue to do as we have done in the past, which is combine social security money with general purpose spending. We passed that out of the House. We had a good debate on it. There was disagreement here and there, but we passed it. The will of the House was to move it forward. But now the Senate, which we appropriately address as ``the other body,'' but it is the other body, they will not move on that. It is very important to my grandmother, to your grandmother, to your parents, that we quit mixing Social Security proceeds with general operating revenues. There is not a business in America that is allowed to mix its pension plan with its operating expenses. It is now time for the other body to vote on this bill, which the President supports, and let us protect the retirement of our grandparents and parents.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, as a father of four, I was very disappointed in the White House's behavior last week and many of the Democrat leadership Members in the House. We had a gun control debate. We had a good debate on juvenile justice, and we agreed, ultimately, on four out of five key issues. Included in that was closing the loophole for gun shows, stricter enforcement, stricter penalties that involved guns, trigger locks, and yet, because it was not exactly what the White House and the Democrat leadership wanted, they put politics over children and torpedoed the bill, killed it, voted it down, and now we have nothing. In the political body, something is always better than nothing if we want to advance the cause, but it is just obvious that politics count more than children's safety. As a father, I take off my Republican hat and I say, I regret it as a parent. Something is going on out there with our children. We need to look at all aspects of the pop culture. Is it the violent video games? Is it the fact that the average TV-viewing child has seen 16,000 murders on TV by the time he is 18 years old? Is it a problem in our schools that maybe our classrooms are too large? We should look at all of those things. I am sorry that the White House put politics over children.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a friendly question?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, although my colleague cannot support this, I do appreciate what he is doing through the format of hearings and looking into it. And I think that he will find, while we all have reservations about one thing or the other, we do want to work any way we can to protect children, give them more positive messages. I want to say, I think my colleague will find the authors of this amendment are certainly willing to help his committee any way we can in a positive sense.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from California and his colleagues that we appreciate the sincerity of this debate. As my colleagues know, this is an element in society today that we are concerned about, and maybe this is not the best vehicle to correct the problem. But I do want to say, it does not condemn the motion picture industry or the entertainment industry. It does have some very positive language in here. We recommend that alternatives be developed concerning discouraging the exposure of children to violent subject matter. We do think that industry has been irresponsible, and that could be tightened up. We say we want the entertainment industry to recognize its power and influence over the Nation's youth and their behavior, and we want them to do everything in their power to stop the portrayals of pointless acts of brutality. So while it is too broad for my colleague, it is not as broad as it has been accused of being. But let me say this. While we are discussing it, positive things are happening. I was in the State legislature in Georgia when we debated a mandatory seat belt law. We debated that for 8 years before it was passed, but during the debate the awareness was heightened, and usage of seat belts went up. I think as long as we are talking about it, as long as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is having hearings about it, we are saying, let us bring this up, talk about it, and let us do it freely. This language has been structured by us to make sure that we do not violate the first amendment. This is an urging kind of thing. And it might be too broad for my colleague, but maybe we should come back and do it as a freestanding resolution that could give us a little more leeway on the language. In recognition, though, the children are watching 20 hours of TV every week and countless hours listening to CDs, computers and videos and so forth, and we are worried that the influences that they are having from them can be negative. By the time a child is a senior in high school, he or she has seen 200,000 acts of violence on TV and 16,000 murders. Research shows overwhelmingly that there is a measurable increase in aggressive behavior from individuals who have been watching violent TV. Let me just say to my colleagues, I have young children; actually, not so young anymore, a 16- and a 14-year-old, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)'s son and mine played together at the bipartisan retreat. But Proximity Mines, a video game, this is how the makers of that game describe it in their own advertisement: A wave of shrapnel that can cut a man off at the knees and slice smaller enemies into a pulpy goo. This is what they are bragging about. Another video game, The Firestorm Cannon, delivers a literal rain of firepower. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the boys who were the perpetrators of Columbine, they were accomplished players of the video game Doom. Well, now there is a new video game Doom, but Doom II, which the promoter and the manufacturer advertises as being bigger, badder and bloodier than the original; this sequel extends the carnage started in Doom. It is something that we are very concerned about, as I know my colleagues are concerned. I never thought I would be quoting Marilyn Manson, but Marilyn Manson, whose CD, among other things, on his album, AntiChrist Superstar, has these words: The housewife I will beat, the prolife I will kill. I throw a little fit, I slash my teenage wrist, get your gunn, get your gunn. Yet, what does he have to say after Columbine? He has to say that the media makes heroes out of Klebold and Harris. Didn't be surprised if people get pushed into believing that these people are idols. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media has turned criminals into folk heroes. There is a broad enough spectrum of philosophy here that we can look into this and not be afraid to talk about it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, when the President says put people first, what he means, particularly this week, is put politicians first, put political people first, because this week, as we further erode the second amendment, we are not putting people first, we are not putting children first, we are not putting safety first, and we are certainly not putting the facts first. But we hear over and over again, no, we are just closing a few loopholes. This is common sense, reasonable, sensible. Yet it goes far beyond closing loopholes in gun shows. It calls for registration of people's guns who go to gun shows, permanent registration. It calls for a 6-month background check that is kept by the FBI for 6 months, and many, many other measures that have nothing to do with closing loopholes. Mr. Speaker, in Columbine High School, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris broke 23 gun control laws. In Heritage High School, the young man broke into his father's gun cabinet to steal a well-protected gun. Yet we have to ask ourselves, maybe there is something beyond gun control that could prevent these things from happening, because gun control is not working. It did not work in these two cases. What about the violent video, the violent TV? What about the music? What about children being raised without parents? It seems in today's society, where there are no absolutes, no truths, there are also no values. This week is not about children, it is about politics.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think that the gentleman from Missouri has a very valid and sincere concern when he offers this amendment. But I, too, must oppose it and am opposing it because I still do not feel comfortable the way this administration has handled this aggressive NATO action. NATO, as we know, is a defensive alliance and has been using an aggressive posture in Kosovo. For 78 days we have bombed the heck out of a country which is the size of Kentucky. We have 855,000 refugees that have left the border that have to be brought back, 500,000 within the borders. These people will be returning home within a month, but to homes that are not there, on roads that they cannot drive on, to jobs that no longer exist because the businesses have been blown up. Ten thousand people have been killed. And what is worse, we have not gotten rid of Milosevic. I do not feel comfortable the way this administration has handled this. Now, I like the idea that the administration will have to come back to Congress and ask us for additional funding or ask us for one thing or the other. It seems to be the only thing that attempts to keep this administration in check. We do not have international unity. We do not have national unity. We do not have the central question answered, which is, why are we in Kosovo to begin with? To say that these 50,000, quote, peacekeeping forces are going to be in there only keeping peace is ridiculous. What happens when the people do not want to give up their guns and their ammunition? We know that we are going to be right back in a warlike posture. I think, that being the case, it is very important that the administration continues to stay close to the Committee on Armed Services, to the Members of Congress, and to be accountable to us of what more money they want and what they want to spend and so forth. I am rising in opposition of the gentleman from Missouri's amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, what separates civilized countries from countries which know only official corruption, abuse of power, and economic misery is the rule of law. Without respect for the rule of law, countries with stunning natural resource wealth, extraordinary human capital, and even formidable military might are nothing more than failed models. The Soviet Union, and now Russia, possessed all of these attributes. And yet the Soviet Union was never more than a declining power and a model from which its citizens tried to flee by the thousands. It was never one to which millions yearned to come to, and realize new and exciting possibilities. Although the Soviet Union is an extreme case, too little regard for the rule of law is the norm, and it characterizes regimes on every continent. America however, has always been different. Historians have spoken of American Exceptionalism since the days of Alexis de Tocqueville over 150 years ago, and one of the most important ingredients in this belief about our special, even God-given role in the world is our regard for the rule of law. Judge John Harvey, who retired from the bench as Chief Superior Court Judge of the Atlantic Judicial Circuit on May 31st of this year, is a man whose entire professional life inspires faith in the rule of law. A man of probity and regard for honor, Judge Harvey brought to his life's work a quiet determination and unceasing commitment to do right. We Americans believe in the basic framework of our rule of law as embodied in the Constitution, a document which has stood the test of time. Despite the steady erosion in the freedoms guaranteed in this document over the past several decades, we still revere the Constitution as a reflection of what we believe in as a people, what the relationship between the ruled and rulers should be, and what is right and good about the most successful experiment in democracy the world has ever seen. But the Constitution is not enough. A piece of paper can never alone ensure respect for the rule of law. It cannot protect us from encroachments on our freedom. And it can never forfend the inevitable tendency of rulers to abuse their power. For the rule of law to triumph, honest men and a virtuous people must insist that it triumph, and they must step forward and demand that threats to our freedom be vanquished. The Constitution provides us with the road map; but honest judges, dedicated police officers, lawyers with integrity, and ethical federal administrators, are the ones who must make the rule of law a reality, a system to which all citizens can appeal, and from which all citizens can receive justice. If even the least among us is denied justice under our system of laws, faith in our rule of law is undermined, and our freedoms are no longer safe. Absent people who are committed to the rule of law, citizens will not have faith that their grievances will be addressed, or that the law- abiding will be protected from those who wish to do us harm. Judge Harvey possesses the kind of even temperament and fair-minded approach to every case that send a signal to plaintiffs and defendants alike that in this case, in this court, before this judge, the law will be upheld and every attempt will be made for the truth to triumph. Judge Harvey was a popular judge who was respected for his sharp legal mind and judicious demeanor. But he was esteemed and admired even more for his reverence for the law and for his integrity. His early success in his life as a distinguished jurist--becoming superior court judge at the age of 38--did nothing to lessen his commitment to his youthful ideals of serving as an honest lawyer in a noble profession. Indeed, his achievement merely spurred him to take his responsibilities even more seriously and with even greater care. Judge Harvey always wanted to be a lawyer. Some lawyers engender respect for the rule of law; others bring our system of laws into disrepute and cause people to lose faith in the very government we elect to serve us. Judge Harvey always dreamed of becoming a lawyer in the first category, a lawyer who will make the system work the way it is supposed to. America will cease to be a country where the rule of law is respected without people like Judge John Harvey. Rising before the sun and leaving the office after colleagues decades his junior, Judge Harvey adhered to work habits and ethical that touched the lives of countless individuals who are responsible for making sure that our Constitution is more than a piece of paper of an inspired origin. His profession, his task, is to make sure that the system works and to create in the citizenry a regard for the rule of law that is all too rare in most countries of the world. In that task, his efforts were singularly successful, and his departure from the bench is a great loss to us all. But the example he set for others remains, and his impact will long outlive his tenure as a sitting judge. Judge Harvey makes me proud to be an American, and it is my great honor to pay tribute to him today. Judge Harvey, thank you for your outstanding service to the United States of America; we will miss you.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Under the title of Rapid Response, let me give our viewers a web page so they can look this up. It is interesting, I think this web page has been cleaned up in recent days since the pressure you have put on them, but I checked it out and it does not really say that much. But you can get a little bit of a feel.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I appreciate his basic opposition to our operations over there. And I have shared that opposition. It is interesting to see where will this be as opposed to the previously tried agreement. I hope that it works. I am optimistic anytime we have a peace agreement. But, at the same time, my colleague is asking all the pertinent questions. He had asked our reason for being there to begin with. Here we are now, 70 days of bombing, and I am still wondering, as a Member of Congress, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, as somebody who sat in hearings and listened to Madeleine Albright and Secretary Cohen and General Shelton and Ambassador Pickering and all these other folks, and I have asked them and I have heard other Members ask them, What are we doing there to begin with? And we got very vague, nebulous answers. My colleague has raised the point about a civil war. What is going on in Sudan right now? Is there not a civil war? Is there not persecution of Christians over there?

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to shift gears with the gentleman, if it is okay. One of the issues which the gentleman and I have spoken about, the gentleman being from Colorado, me being from Georgia, we have had shootings at schools recently, is what is the cause of this? I hope the gentleman from California stays, if he can. But I go back to my Clark Central High School in 1973. It was a large public school. We had the usual share of problems, of teens. We had love, we had breakups, we had couples, we had drugs, we had alcohol, we had DUIs, we had fast cars, we had the pressures of the post-sixties generation and long hair and hippies and good times and bad times associated with that. We did have school violence, we had fights and we had inner-city problems and some racial tension here and there. But we did not have random shooting of children. You ask yourself as a parent, I have four children, and I ask myself, what is it in 1999 that is different than 1973 that causes children to randomly shoot each other? What is it out there? Is it in the air? Is it in the entertainment business? Is it in education? Are we missing something in early childhood development? What can we do? One of the things which the gentleman has been a leader of is pointing out the amount of time that children spend before violent TV shows or before violent video shows. One of the statistics, interestingly enough I wanted to share with the gentleman, if I can put my hand on it right now, well, this is not the statistic I wanted to share right here, but the gentleman has brought this chart, and if the gentleman wants to explain it, I will bring it down there to him, but here is one of the I would say typical video games which our children are exposed to. If you go to just about any shopping mall, they are going to have a video arcade parlor. The gentleman and I growing up, we thought okay, that is foozball and air hockey and maybe one of those games where you go inside and drive real fast. But this is what they have. This game is it is made by Interplay, who is a big donor to political causes, but the name of the game is ``You're Gonna Die.'' It is actually Kingpin. ``Kingpin is the life of crime.'' In it are children. This is not adults who play this game, this is children at the shopping mall on Saturday. They can decide who their gang members are going to be, they can decide who they are going to shoot. They can steal a bicycle or hop a train to get around town. Even when you are in jail, you can recruit gang members to your side. You can talk to people the way you want to, from smack to pacifying, and then you can shoot and have actual damage done, including exit wounds to specific body parts. This is the cheerful manna that American children are exposed to over and over again. Because these kids, to play this game, you do not just walk in. Frankly, I do not think an adult could walk in and plunge a quarter or two down and start playing it. You have to develop the expertise. So this game is geared for kids who play lots of video, and, as we know, kids who play lots of video have a kind of addiction to it, and they play many hours worth a week. It could be football, it could be hockey or basketball, but, for some kids, unfortunately, it is Kingpin, Life of Crime, talking about ``You're Gonna Die'' and all these cheerful things. We wonder what kind of message we are sending to our children.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, no, we do not. And there is also a border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Will we be over there? What is going to be the policy? And where will NATO come to play? As my colleague pointed out, NATO is a defensive organization and yet this was an offensive operation. Are we going to be seeing NATO doing that all over the world? And then what are they going to do about the Middle East? Is NATO going to have a role in that? We probably will not see that. But what kind of precedent does that set? In any case, as the gentleman has alluded to many times, in terms of the details, let us assume everything that he has mentioned to this point, everything works out. The big question then is how is it going to be paid for? One of the things that has shocked me as a Member of Congress is that on peace agreements it is usually good ol' Uncle Sam, our hard-working taxpayers back home, our money basically buying off both sides. But over there, and it might be the President hosts something and you have all the heads of state and you have a big fanfare and it is in some strange and unusual place we have never heard of. And yet, at the bottom line, they all have one thing in common; and that is that the American taxpayers have paid both sides to quit fighting. There can be a great advantage to that. It might be cheaper than to continue fighting. And it certainly may save American lives. And yet how much of this out of 19 NATO countries will we be paying?

Mr. KINGSTON. I think the point is that what we need to do as Members of Congress is to make sure that the President does everything he can do to get everybody to, I guess, pass the hat fairly, because if this is truly a European peril and Europe has the primary interest in it, then Europe has to also have the primary obligation to help funding in it.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, just to put it in Georgia terms, I represent coastal Georgia from Savannah to Brunswick to St. Mary's, Georgia. I also have, a little west of there, Vidalia, home of the Vidalia onions; Statesboro, Georgia, home of Georgia Southern University. You take all the 18 counties of the First District of Georgia, it is about 600,000 people. Go down just south of that to Jacksonville and we are talking about approximately 855,000 people, the entire coast of Georgia and part of the coast of Florida. That is who the refugees would constitute if we put numbers to it. We would have that many refugees. You take all those people out of coastal Georgia and let us say a hurricane came and the hurricane destroyed all the roads, all the bridges, all the factories so there are no jobs, there are no schools, there are no hospitals, there are no homes, and you have got to rebuild all that. And then as you have pointed out, our NATO allies have not been carrying their fair share in this war effort. I seriously doubt that they are going to be willing to do this in the peace effort. But as the President obligates us to rebuild Yugoslavia, think about what also is on the table. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, children's health care, immunizations, research for multiple sclerosis, for Parkinson's disease, for cancer, all this. Now, in an ordinary household, the American taxpayer is saying, ``Okay, I understand, you got to spend some money in Kosovo so you're going to reduce spending over here, and these are good programs but I understand choice, because I the American worker have to do that. I have to choose between a new dryer or a new set of tires for the family van. And so I understand that.'' But that is not the case. Here in Washington what happens is you just continue spending in both places. That is one of the things that just drives us crazy with this administration, as conservative Members of Congress, is that if the administration wants to obligate us to spend all the money in Kosovo and let NATO not carry their fair share, then you would think they would at least say, ``Okay, but we are going to spend a little less elsewhere,'' but they do not do that. They continue to spend at extravagant and high levels of other causes, both worthy and wasteful. There again, the hardworking American families of middle class taxpayers who are already putting in 50 to 60 hours a week, two- income families and they are running back and forth, they are paying taxes, one more time they are going to get stuck with the tab.

Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, today we have before us the defense reauthorization bill, and it is a very important bill in that it reverses the trend of massive defense cuts. Now it is interesting, as we go into the debate, actually on the eve of the debate, we have the Democrat Majority Leader speaking basically the Democrat policy on defense which was we have got to have a combination of taking money, and I am going to paraphrase it, but when he says taking it out, taking money out of defense and raising revenue, raising taxes. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even raising taxes to do it, but the point is here we have a defense, and I will show my colleagues another chart which traces defense spending under the Clinton administration, particularly since 1993, how it has been cut massively during the period of time that we have had increased deployments, we have had equipment that lacks spare parts, we need modernization, and we are losing lots of good soldiers because the quality of life has gone down so much. But despite this decrease, the Majority Leader of the Democrat party is saying again we need to squeeze it out of defense, we need to cut defense spending, and this in the face of a President who is selling missile technology to China. Madam Speaker, it does not make sense. I hope people will support this bill, and I hope that we can get the Democrats to join us. I believe that we will get a lot of Democrats with us, but it is too bad that the Democrat leadership is still out of touch and still clearly anti-military.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Ryun amendment. This is a commonsense amendment. To quote the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the letter of June 8, it says his amendment simply prohibits foreign visitors from sensitive countries, and those are constituents that are such staunch U.S. allies as China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, from entering national laboratories unless the Secretary of Energy grants a waiver to individuals deemed necessary to our, the United States', national security. Frankly, given the track record of this administration, I hate to see them have the ability to grant waivers. I would love to have some language in there that said unless they have been giving to the campaign, but I do not want to go that route. I think we have already hashed that out. We know the relationships that have caused some of these breaches in security. But let us look at some of the statistics: 742 Chinese scientists visited Los Alamos National Laboratory, but only 12 were given background checks; 23 Iraqi and Iranian scientists visited the Sandia National Laboratory, none were given background checks; 1,110 Russian scientists visited Los Alamos National Laboratory, yet only 116 were given background checks. Come on. This is national security. What is it that these people from sensitive countries offer that people are opposing the Ryun amendment over? I am not sure. What was it that the scientists from Cuba or North Korea or Iran or Iraq or Russia gave that we are afraid to give up for 2 years? Really we are not giving it up for 2 years. The Secretary of Energy would have the right to waive the requirement. This is a common sense amendment. Our national security has been breached because of the sloppiness of the current administration. This tries to correct it. I stand in strong support of the Ryun amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Just 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, we all popped the champagne corks and celebrated the passage of a bipartisan budget agreement signed by the President of the United States, the Democrats and the Republicans in the Congress, and now it is time to follow through on that agreement. We must, on both sides of the aisle, follow through on our obligation. Look what is ahead in terms of spending: Veterans' bills, processing of their health care claims, water and sewer grants, housing for the low income, education, money for teachers, Medicaid, children's health and immunizations, money for the National Park Service for land acquisition, for trails, for shelters, for the Department of Interior, research money for diabetes, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, heart, jobs programs of all natures. In essence, this is only the first appropriations bill. Everything else that is in our $1.7 trillion budget lies down the road. By supporting this decrease in funding on this bill right now, we free up more money down the road to have more options on these very, very important programs, and that is why we need to pass the bill in its present form, as amended.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the outstanding achievements of the Southside Savannah Raiders, and I present to you this resolution. Whereas, the Southside Savannah Raiders, the terrific youth baseball team for boys 14 years old and under, won the 1998 State Baseball Championship promoted by the Georgia Association of Recreation and Parks Departments; and Whereas, the victorious Raiders are sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 671, but all of Savannah shared in their victory in Brunswick on July 18, 1998; and Whereas, the Southside Savannah Raiders had an overall record of 32 wins and five losses during the 1998 season while clinching the League, City, District 2, and Georgia Games titles; and Whereas, these fine young athletes demonstrated exceptional ability, motivation, and team spirit throughout their regiorous season, and the experience they have shared has provided them many wonderful memories, friendships, and values; and Whereas, the members of the 1998 Raiders are Joey Boaen, Christopher Burnsed, Brady Cannon, Robert Cole, Brian Crider, Matthew Dotson, Kevin Edge, Michael Hall, Mark Hamilton, Garett Harvey, Zach Hillard, Bobby Keel, Corey Kesseler, Chris Palmer, Matt Thomas, and Ellis Waters; and the coaches are Linn Burnsed, Danny Boaen, and Gene Dotson, now therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives; that the members of this body congratulate the Southside Savannah Raiders on their state championship and wish each member of the team all the success in the future. Be it further resolved that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the Southside Savannah Raiders.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the volunteer efforts of so many people in Offerman have been so extraordinary that one is tempted to suggest that the federal government consider this method of putting up new buildings in order to save ourselves from the cost overruns, delays, and problems that seem to plague this kind of enterprise all too often. The efforts of people like the Edward Daniel family, Mrs. Lucille Chancey, Mrs. Ethel Roberson, the Sam Cason family, the Ray Cason family, the Harvey Dixon family, the Ellis Denison family, and so many, many others have been so inspiring that the entire community has created a feeling of togetherness that is similar to the feeling one experiences at a family reunion. And speaking of families, the extended Cason family contributed to the enterprise in a way that brought generations together. Sam and Susie Cason helped with the painting, the carpentry, the sheet rock, the landscaping, the insulation, and countless other tasks. And they were joined by their children, and the Ray Cason family and grandchildren, with some as young as the 1st grade helping with their little tool sets in the best way they could. Many of those who volunteered their time had full-time jobs, and so they came to help on Saturdays. Evenings and weekends--any time that was free--went into the task of completing a job whose progress was open to all to see. Communities used to come together during the Middle Ages to construct spectacular cathedrals, for they were the center of public life and the beautiful churches they built were the pride of the community. The cathedrals were often multi-year projects, and they called upon the labors of virtually everyone in the community. The famous cathedrals of Notre Dame in Paris, for example, was built over a period of 157 years by the time it was finally completed. It was the pride of kingdom, and artists and carpenters came from great distances to have the honor of participating in such a spectacular undertaking. Another famous cathedral is the stunningly beautiful cathedral of Chartres, also in France. 50 years after it was built, it was completely destroyed by fire. So the community decided it would have to be rebuilt--even better than before. It took 26 years, but as generations to follow would attest, it was worth the effort. The same spirit of common enterprise evident back then has been evident in the construction of Offerman's new city hall. The entire community was involved, and for the past two years, there was no escaping the progress of the project, as the results were there for all to see. Well, today we see the final result of so many labors. The citizens of this great city have devoted time, materials, labor, and not a few blisters, overcoming many obstacles and unanticipated hiccups along the way. This new addition to Offerman will be much more than a new building we call city hall. It will include a branch library and computer facilities for students and adults; and it stands next to a public park with picnic and other recreational facilities that are tailor-made for Offerman families. This facility promises to be a new center of public activity for the citizens of Offerman, and it is with great enthusiasm and pride that I join you in dedicating this new city hall and declaring ``Open House'' to all. Thank you very much for allowing me an opportunity to share in the celebration of all your hard work and perseverance.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as a representative from the great peanut State of Georgia, I rise to oppose the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma. This National Competitive Center for Peanuts, one would envision by that title a building of bricks and mortar when it in fact is not. This goes into funding research at the University of Georgia, the purpose being to find out if there are more efficient ways to produce peanuts. It is legitimate agricultural research, as is the type of research that we do on a myriad of other crops and fibers and foodstuffs all over the country. One of the great challenges that we have on this Subcommittee on Agriculture is funding research which is open to easy ridicule. For example, if this committee funds something that has to do with the mating habits of the screw, it is a great sound bite for Jay Leno and it is a great article for the Reader's Digest to say ``Look at what these idiots are doing, they are researching the sex life of bugs.'' And it is funny, and we all have a big laugh about it, and somebody from the other body says to the President, veto this obvious pork. Yet, to the families of America who eat groceries every day, it is very important. They might not think this immediately benefits them. But I can promise my colleagues that agriculture research benefits every American household. Because, unlike some folks in the media and some folks in the other body, our constituents in this side of the legislature have to eat. And the more one knows about food, the more one can effectively and inexpensively produce it. That is why we do peanut research. That is why we do corn research. That is why we do bug research. This is part of a bigger picture. Mr. Chairman, we know that the learned and distinguished and conservative gentleman from Oklahoma's real purpose here is to cut spending. But we also know that this bill, while it can be nickled and dimed here and there and questioned here and there, and things can be pulled out for micro inspection and therefore ridiculed, we know that this bill is within the spending budget. This bill is within the bipartisan agreement that was signed off by the President of the United States, that was signed off by the House leadership: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). It was signed off and adhered to by the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee and all of the Democrat and all the Republican members. We have fulfilled our mission. We have come in at goal. We hope that other subcommittees do the same thing. The objective of the gentleman from Oklahoma is not necessarily to pick on peanuts, but it is to criticize this bill. We are saying, you know what? The bill might not be perfect, but it comes in at the right price, and it is about 80 percent as good as one can get it in a legislative body of 435 people coming from all over the United States representing the great 260 million people in America. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge my colleagues to soundly reject this amendment. Not for the sake of peanuts, not for the sake of peanut competitiveness, but for the bigger future, the bigger purpose of putting food on the family breakfast, lunch and dinner tables across America. Because we, unlike other nations, only spend 11 cents on the dollar on our groceries. Other countries spend 20, 25 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents. Other places even less fortunate than that spend all day long scratching out a living only to get food on their table. Agriculture research, Mr. Chairman, is very important. It is part of our agriculture picture, and fortunately, we have very few people as a percentage of our population going to bed hungry at night, but it is because of important agriculture research, as well as this farm program. Now, the gentleman talked about peanut subsidies. I would remind him that peanut subsidies are not there anymore. The peanut program is a program, and yes, it is an elaborate program, and no, it is not the model for capitalism and free market. But what it does do, it allows young people to go back home and farm for a living, because they know if they can make a profit on peanuts, then they can also grow corn, soybeans and hogs/pork which they cannot make a living off of. Protect America's farmers. Vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the intent of the gentleman's previous amendment, and I hope the gentleman is about to reoffer it so that I may do so and not move on to another section.