Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding time to me. Princess Diana lived a glamorous and, at times, a surreal life. While some truly envied her and surely at times she envied us, those of us who can go out in public without recognition, those of us who can eat in a restaurant without interruption, those of us who can go on a family outing without intrusion, and those of us who can go to a movie without becoming the main feature. Yet somehow, through the romance, the fantasy and the protocol, she connected with everyday people. She was a mother who loved her children and tried to raise them correctly, despite the distractions. She was a humanitarian helping those unable to help themselves. She was an institution showing us the best of the state with a soft, human face. Through the sad and melancholy pages of her biography, in the final analysis, her life is but a tragedy wrapped in a fairy tale. Perhaps we can learn by it. Many people have been moved by her life and the loss of her life. As the world's goodwill ambassador, she had fans all across the globe. But as a member of the International Relations Committee, I know that needs have no national boundary, no intervening contracts and no treaties. And perhaps we, as a globe, would be better served not by dividing ourselves by what we have, but by uniting ourselves by what we lack and what we can accomplish together in pursuit of a better world. I believe that the folks who mourn the most for the tragic death of Princess Diana are not doing it, Mr. Speaker, because they wish that maybe this Barbie-doll-type life did not get snuffed out, but maybe they are truly searching for some magic out there that can say and reach out to every one of us and say, maybe there is something better that we can do and maybe a little bit of kindness goes a long way. I think that perhaps that is what she stood for among everybody, as the previous speaker said, a little bit more love.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, summer is over, schools are open, the kids are back, reading, writing and arithmetic. There are a lot of ideas kicking around about how best to teach to our children. One creative, yet controversial, idea in Houston asked math problems using street examples about drug dealers and guns and prostitution and murder and so forth. Maybe that idea was a bad one, but we could try some political questions. For example, if illegally using White House phones, Al raises $30,000 a call from Democrat fat cats, how long does it take him to raise an illegal $120,000? If Al reimbursed the taxpayers $24.20 for raising the $120,000, how much profit does he make? If Bill rents the Lincoln Bedroom for $100,000 a night, how many nights does he have to rent it to raise a million dollars? If the Clinton appointees state under oath ``I can't recall'' once a second, how long would it take them before we have heard it one trillion times? You know, the Democrats are real upset about campaign finance reform. It is about like asking Mike Tyson to lead a fair-fighting commission. It is absurd, Mr. Speaker. Let us start looking at the White House if we want to talk campaign finance reform.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being recognized to speak in favor of the School of the Americas. Not everything is perfect. Unfortunately, the folks who support this amendment are correct in that in the past there have been graduates of this school who have abused human rights and caused all sorts of pain and suffering. That has been a very, very small minority of student participants, and the things that they did, they did not learn at the School of the Americas. They certainly were not trained with that intent by the School of the Americas. That was many, many years ago. Some debates, Mr. Speaker, are timely, and some debates are timeless. This debate seems to be timeless in that once the side who opposes the School of the Americas has got their point across and the changes have been made, it is time to stop. But, instead, we are continuing year after year, rehashing the same ground, regurgitating the same arguments over and over again. This debate, rather than being timeless, should be timely, and the time to debate it was properly in the early 1990's under Secretary Cheney. Under Secretary Cheney many, many changes were made that threw out some of the offensive materials which the supporters of this amendment keep referring to. It is not the case any more. What we are doing is we are debating Model T's in the era of 1997 automobiles. It is just that there is a photograph there. We are looking at the moving picture here, and the moving picture has gone on and times have changed. But to be on the safe side, the committee this year has put in some very strong safeguards. One, the Secretary of Defense must certify that the instruction and training provided by the school are fully consistent with training and doctrine provided to U.S. military personnel, especially, Mr. Chairman, regarding human rights. Number two, the Departments of Defense and State have improved the guidelines for screening and admitting students to better avoid students with records of human rights violations or who may have tendencies in that direction. Number three, the Department of Defense completes a comprehensive report on training activities of the school and an assessment of the performance of the graduates. These are three things that are in the bill right now. This amendment is not necessary. The abuses that they are referring to that happened are horrible, and I certainly agree, but they happened many years ago by graduates that would not be admitted to the school today. Now, let me say this on a personal basis. I have visited the school. It is disturbing, greatly disturbing to me, that most of the supporters of this amendment have not taken the time to visit the school. In fact, I would challenge my colleagues, if you have been to the school and you support the amendment, when you speak, please let folks know, and tell us about the terrorists you saw in the classroom. I am not going to tell you that I could tell terrorists from a nonterrorist sitting in a classroom, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you this: I talked to young idealistic men and women from South America who had lots of ideas on democracy, lots of enthusiasm about the American system of government, and lots of enthusiasm for freedom and its noble concepts. I have visited them, and I have talked to the students. It makes a tremendous difference in your opinion of an institution when you have been there and talked to the students. If you do not go, maybe if you support this amendment, you should make it a priority to visit it. I would be glad to help any of my colleagues who would like to go down to Columbus, Georgia. We could probably get you in and out of there in a day. It would mean so much to the students down there, it would mean so much to the institution, and perhaps it could mean a whole lot to the great cause that we share of freedom. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to please vote against this amendment, and support the School of the Americas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School of the Americas and in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that most of us here do not oppose international military training in general. The amendment addresses only the military training provided at Fort Benning because of a negative image, or stigma, remaining from a relatively very few problems from the past. This makes this issue a self-feeding problem to a large extent because the negative stigma is perpetuated by the very groups who use it as justification to close the school. The negative propaganda and baggage that continues to follow the school is just not a valid argument to shut down the only school of this kind in the world with such devoted attention to teaching professionalism, respect for rule of law and civilian leadership, and human rights to young officers and soldiers of Latin America who would not otherwise get this critical training. In fact, the School of the Americas provides much more of this kind of training to its students than our own military men and women receive. We also often hear lists of human rights abuses committed by Latin American military personnel who may or may not have received some varying level of training at the School. These cases--while horrible-- are very rare when compared to the large number of students trained at the school. To close the school simply because less than one percent of its graduates haven't successfully applied what they've learned is inappropriate, short-sighted, and counterproductive. Let me just ask everyone: If the United States set up a program to teach Latin American militaries to reject repressive behavior, to respect human rights, and advance the cause of democracy in our own back yard, would you support it? What if it were only 99 percent effective? That's what we're dealing with in plain English. No exaggerations, no distortions, no feel-good hype. Why would we throw away the opportunity to teach hundreds of Latin American military officers to respect human rights just because a few don't get the message? I challenge all members of this committee to visit the school before you take active action, such as this amendment, to close it. With all due respect, I know very few members here today, including Mr. Torres himself, have actually visited the School down at Fort Benning. If it's not possible for you to visit, Colonel Trumbel, the School's Commandant, is available to meet with any Member one on one here in Washington to discuss any and all concerns you may have. I ask that you please get the facts, investigate the school for yourself rather than relying on second-hand propaganda, before you vote to close this school. What can we do here today to improve the school? The language in the bill regarding the School of the Americas takes major steps to address remaining concerns of Congress. I remind you that the bill as it currently stands denies all funds from the school until: First, the Secretary of Defense certifies the instruction and training provided by the school are fully consistent with training and doctrine provided to U.S. military personnel, especially regarding human rights, second, DOD and State have improved the guidelines for screening and admitting students to better avoid students with records of human rights violations, and third, DoD completes a comprehensive report on training activities of the School and an assessment of the performance of its graduates. These are very significant steps to improve any remaining problems. I ask that you support the very reasonable compromise language currently in the bill and oppose this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, at the invitation of Rosemary Mucklow, I had the opportunity to go to San Francisco and speak to the National Meat Association. While there, Rosemary invited us to a reception at the home of Agnes and Al Picetti. It was a wonderful house perched high on the slope of one of San Francisco's many hillsides. The view was spectacular, the food tremendous, and the host family as delightful and graceful as a California spring day. The Piccetti, Gatto, and DeMartini family members made us all feel at ease. Their home was ours. Their generosity was ours to enjoy. Their obvious and apparent success was ours to celebrate. How did one get to live such a life? How was it that the family of first generation of Americans could experience such a generous slice of prosperity and affluence? Was it luck? Desire? Hard work? Or belief in a greater ideal and that of the American dream? I left believing it was the latter. Mr. and Mrs. Piccetti had put in their time, taken risk, worked long hours, persevered and succeeded, but throughout their highs and lows, victories and defeats, they believe in America. What it stands for and what an individual can accomplish in our great system of enterprise and government. Their story is worth telling. Ms. Mucklow was kind enough to write a brief biography, and I am honored to enter it into the Record. Albert L. Piccetti Albert Piccetti was born to John and Viola Piccetti in 1918 at their home in the North Beach Community of San Francisco, California. He grew up on Telegraph Hill, a working class neighborhood that was home to new immigrants from Italy and Spain. Eight-year-old Albert learned the value of hard work as soon as he was old enough to accompany his father on his garbage pick-up route through the streets of San Francisco. As one of his earliest work memories, Al remembers his father persuading a reluctant team of Clydesdale horses to back up on a wooden ramp to empty the wagon's haul for the day. Surrounded by the strong work ethic of new Americans, young Al's first business venture was as a shoe shine entrepreneur. After painstakingly building his shoe box, Al was ready for his first customers in Washington Park. It wasn't long before he received a lesson in ``sales territories'' from the established shoe shine boys. It was to be Al's shortest business endeavor! At the age of 16, Albert became the sole support of his parents and younger sister when his father suffered a debilitating stroke. Although not physically tall in stature, he survived the rigorous initiation of a partner-worker into the Golden Gate Scavenger Company working alongside men the age of his father as the primary breadwinner for the family. He met his life's partner, Agnes Gatto, at the local Italian social club. She was chaperoned under the very watchful eyes of her brothers. When they return from their honeymoon, a draft notice from Uncle Sam was waiting. During the war years, Al was most proud of her certification as an instrument flight trainer and used his natural drawing talents to instruct new pilots. Following the war, Al joined his wife's family in operating a local bar and grill in the produce and printing district of San Francisco. Al took this opportunity to sharpen his culinary skills, which are still widely appreciated today by friends and family! In 1957, Al Piccetti, along with is brother-in-law, Felix Gatto, and his boyhood friend, Ernie DeMartini, purchased a family-run Italian sausage factory, and kept the name: San Francisco Sausage Company. They learned every aspect of their new business making traditional Italian salame. The company was, and is today, best known for its Columbus brand salame. Considered more an art than a science at the time, their growing success soon demanded a larger manufacturing plant. Moving a cured dry sausage operation entailed unknown risks due to the fastidious requirements of the white, Penicillin- type molds that grow on the surface of the salame as it matures. Those early years were a challenge to their fortitude in unraveling the mysteries of mycology. Albert was on the forefront of implementing new scientific methods to ensure the safety and tradition of the product that his forefathers introduced to the United States. After almost 30 years in the business, Albert retired from the San Francisco Sausage Company as President and CEO in 1985. He and his partners left the business in the hands of the next generation of Piccettis, Gattos, and DeMartinis. Upon retiring and with his four children grown, Al, characteristically, moved on to pursue a new dream. Al and Agnes Piccetti purchased hillside acreage in the Dry Creek Valley of Sonoma County, north of San Francisco. Local realtors scratched their heads in puzzlement at his choice of undeveloped scrub brush property; but, Al already envisioned the slopes lush with grapevines. The newly retired couple spent their nights in a small trailer, with Al busy designing and planting their first vineyard. In time, they built their home. Al's designs are evident in every facet of the AA Ranch: precise layout and trellising of the grapes; the functional beauty of the iron work in the ceiling beams; and, the careful placement of stone water causeways. Al Piccetti's warmth, generosity and friendship have touched thousands of people in his communities, church, family, and business. Al's accomplishments are the story of the American Dream of hard work, love, dedication and respect. We're pleased to place this acknowledgement of his continuing life in the Record.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this text was written as a letter to Anna Kate and future grandchildren so that they could know a little about their grandfather's work. Later when I was asked to eulogize Mal it became my text. March 10, 1997. Mal died yesterday. He had worked with us since the beginning. I got to know him in the '92 campaign. He was on the list of Wayne County Republicans that called in February 1992 about my campaign. I did such calling in all 22 1st district counties. Most led to no where but a rare few led to real recruitments, loyal GOP soldiers who raise money, put up signs, stuff envelopes, host parties, display bumper stickers, introduce me to VIPs, organize the county and do whatever needed to be done. Finding such a recruitment took about 20 calls and 5 false workers. Mal proved to be true. He asked me a barrage of traditional conservative litmus test questions on school prayer, abortion, education, gun control and so forth. Once satisfied that I had his philosophical interest he volunteered- 100% and became my foremost Wayne county contact. He did all of the above and was as happy as I was when we won the seat. Months later while organizing the office another friend and supporter Brit Gaston was counseling me on hiring. When he called Mal for the interview he missed Mal but got his telephone recording: ``Thank you for calling the Wayne County Headquarters of Jack Kingston for Congress. We're not in right now . . .'' Brit's comment was that there were few such loyal folks. Mal became our Waycross manager. He served there until Waycross was reapportioned back to the 8th district. Then he ran the Brunswick office. He was a great detail man, often doing dry runs on various routes to determine exact time for scheduling. He never let a crumb fall to the floor. In our various rounds constituents constantly came up with social security, veteran, legal, IRS request and so on. Mal would whip out his tiny book get names, telephone numbers, addresses and the nature of the inquiries. Most of these people were unconnected common men not giving to titles, business cards and attorneys, but they were in good hands with Mal. In a time when Republicans were painted by Democrats and the press for being elitist and lofty it was extremely important for folks to know we were approachable and available to help serve them. With Mal I never heard a complaint, but wage earner, unemployed and itinerant would come up to me praising his work. In truth he did it not for politics or compensation but for God. His eyes for detail served us well. One of my goals is to personally know lots of people. Unfortunately its beyond my feeble memory to do so. Seeing people briefly once or twice a year is insufficient to imprint their face indelibly on my brain. Mal however covered this. He'd write me notes-- ``Please call Joan Smith (sister to Perry Smith you saw him at the Patterson Lyons Club BQ last year. He was wearing the funny green hat and talked to you about his tobacco barn) about her mothers Social Security claim.'' or else, ``When you write Bob Jones to thank him for the turnip greens please remember to congratulate him on winning the Pierce County Young Farmer of the Year.'' He knew what to say. Mal also handled our Military Academy Appointments. Each year we get about 50 inquiries that result in 25 interviews for Annapolis, West Point, the Air Force Academy and Kings Point. Only three or four get appointments. Others get to compete for a nomination directly with other second place nominees. The first tier needn't worry, but for those on the 2nd tier only get a chance if a 1st place nominee drops out. To these Mal gave his heart. If a kid had just missed a 1st place but had his dream in an appointment Mal went to bat for him. One such kid, Matt Brady of Savannah missed it the first year. He was determined sincere and certainly won the goodwill of the board, but that same year the top West Point candidate made higher SAT scores. Matt was beat. He went to Fort Valley Military. He worked hard and was the favored candidate the next year, but despite his best efforts his SAT's were still low and other candidates had 1570 and 1330. Thus to our collective heart break Matt was bumped again. But thru Mal's efforts knowing and working the system he found a way to get all 3 an appointment one year later, out of the entire West Point freshmen class, Matt Brady was selected Cadet of the Year. There are other examples like the 3 kids from Twin City, a little town of 1500 in Emanuel County. All had come from the same Boy Scout Camp. Mal loved institutions like the Boy Scouts, any group dedicated to kids, God, and country. He beamed with pride about the ability of one den mother to produce so many outstanding kids. These boys and girls don't even know Mal but you can be assured that if not for Mal their lives and military careers would be decidedly different. Mal liked people but he also liked policy. More than any other employee he'd ask about votes. He liked to know the inside scoop-who was for it, who against it, who said what and why. He studied it. He read about it. He liked the legislative process, but it wasn't gossip or politics that caught his fancy it was policy. Are we building a better America? Did his hard work pay off? Will tomorrow's America be stronger? Will there be a better America for his children and grandchildren? How will it affect Anna Kate? Here laid his real love. The country and the family. Mal wasn't doing this for a job, but for a better government. That would be the results of his efforts. He saw his mission as an extension to his fatherhood. Naturally a Dad--a loving Dad--is going to do what he can for America. Because in serving America, he was looking out for his kids. His loved his daughters, son-in-law and grand daughter. He loved Tharen. He was comfortable in that love. He wasn't struggling with his family relationship, it was solid. It was like Mal--steady, loyal, kind yet strong. Very strong. There's an old story of a child having a nightmare. He runs to his Dad saying that the world was going out of orbit. The wise father takes him out on the porch puts the young boy in his lap and says ``See that moon? Keep your eye on it and when it moves we're in trouble.'' After some 30 minutes the boy was back asleep safe in his father's arm and of course the moon hadn't budged. Just as the moon's steady glow and permanently had comforted the boy, Mal had a similar focus. His comfort was the Son. Steadfast and certain his Savior was Jesus Christ. If Mal was with us today he would tell us not to be troubled by his absence but to be joyful in the Son's presence. Mal now watches his family from above, but surely his Christian family will also see him when the time comes. Jack Kingston. P.S. A few days after the funeral Peggy Lee gave me the attached memo. It's the last one I ever received from Mal. It's typical and a fitting tribute to a kind and thoughtful man. Written days before his stroke, Mal's last memo was concerning someone else's stroke and condition.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, back in the First District of Georgia what will the tax cut mean to the Collins family? Mr. and Mrs. Collins, who have a combined income of $61,000 and three kids, Dennis, Tom, and Sue Ellen, the $500 per child tax credit means the Collins' will pay $1,500 less in taxes next year. Mr. Collins is a farmer. Mrs. Collins is a school teacher. Because he is self-employed, he can start deducting 100 percent of his health care costs. That makes health care for the Collins family more affordable and more accessible. And when it comes time to estate planning, to pass that family farm, that American dream back down the line to Tom, Dennis, and Sue Ellen, Mr. and Mrs. Collins will now have a $2.6 million unified tax credit on their death taxes that will be exempt from the taxes so that they can pass the farm on to the next generation. Mr. Speaker, this is the American dream as the Republican Party has worked for it. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion. We believe that families like the Collins' are all over America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Augusta, Georgia [Mr. Norwood].

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett]. (Mr. Everett asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], in the heart of peanut country.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the guts of the farm bill, it is, indeed, as complicated as the inside of the Pathfinder. As the Pathfinder trudges and scrutinizes the surface of Mars, the American public and Members of Congress are scrutinizing the inside of the farm bill. Anyone who looks at it looks at it in pure disbelief, not knowing what components mean what, and so forth. It is true, the peanut program under the new reforms is a no-net-cost program that contributes $83 million to deficit reduction, it supports about 30,000 jobs, and there is a phaseout of the program in under 7 years. But if we take a step back and shut the hood and look at the total picture, Americans have an abundant food supply at cheap prices year around. We spend 11 cents on the dollar on food. The farm bill is working, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to let it work, and do not do reforms on a piecemeal basis, which is what this amendment would do. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time, 7\1/2\ minutes, be yielded to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] the ranking member, for purposes of control.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I am prolife, and I certainly agree with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] that one of the strongest things one can do as a Member of the Congress who is prolife is to support people who are hungry. And that is why I am going to vote against the WIC bureaucrat increase and vote for the farmers. The farmers are the ones who produce foods, not Washington bureaucrats. It appears that our well-intended friends on the other side of the aisle are once again feeding bureaucrats, and this time they are taking the food away from the families by hitting the farmers right between the eyes on it. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture bill is always kind of a convoluted maze of price supports, import-export quotas, allotments, all kinds of different jargon that is unique to the ag committees and ag laws. But the results of it are spectacular. Two percent of the American population feeds 100 percent of the population plus millions of people throughout the world. Americans, on an average, pay 11 cents on a dollar earned for food. That is less than what they pay for recreation, on an average. That is why we have so many of these farm programs. Some of them are very hard to explain. But the results, when you are paying 11 cents on the dollar for food and 2 percent of the population is feeding 100 percent, it works. In this bill of $49 billion, $37 billion goes to food and nutrition programs. Just in May, 2 months ago, we increased WIC $76 million. And I quote from the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], my friend, May 1, 1997, ``the $76 million figure is based on numbers submitted from the States to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early April of this year. These numbers are, in fact, only a few weeks old.'' We increased in response to that $76 million. Now we have increased it again a mere 2 months later $118 million. Now, it is always nice to say, hey, we have got starving women. But according to the numbers of our colleagues on the left, that $76 million increase was full funded. Now we are going another 118. According to our figures, USDA figures, this is full participation of WIC at 7.4 million people. Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that WIC, as we speak, has a $200 million carry-over. That is a surplus in the WIC fund. We are not talking about children versus commission agents. We are talking about farmers versus bureaucrats. I know there are a lot of people who like bureaucrats and a lot of people who want to see government grow. But as for me, I am going to go with the farmers. Because it is the farmers who grow the food, it is the farmers who feed the children, it is the farmers who feed the families, it is the farmers who feed the babies. It is not Washington bureaucrats. The only thing that this thing does is take money away from farmers and give it to the bureaucrats. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, it would be great if we were privately funding the whole bill. But, unfortunately, the taxpayers are paying all $49 billion of this bill; $37 billion of it is going into food and nutrition programs for children, but that is not enough. What appears to be happening is that some folks want to take more away from the farmers and give more to Washington bureaucrats. The farmers are the ones feeding the families.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I know there are a lot of people who do not like the private sector, and I know the private sector is anathema to many Members on my colleague's side. But the fact is the private sector is delivering the insurance program cheaper than some of his friends over at USDA. It is saving taxpayer dollars. It is shrinking the size of Government. And it is more efficiently penetrating the marketplace so we do not have to have these disaster relief bills that are a big government expenditure year after year. I think, finally, the USDA has moved in a very smart, efficient, common-sense direction. But now again, Mr. Speaker, people want to take money away from the farmers and give it to the bureaucrats. Their amendment is bureaucrat and it is anti-food and anti-farmers. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. KINGSTON. We increased it in May by $76 million. We increase it in this bill $118 million.

Mr. KINGSTON. Exactly. And 2 months ago we were told the $76 million increase would bring us up to the full participation level, and we did not have a dialog or a debate about this in committee. It was everybody was happy.

Mr. KINGSTON. No; I have not. That is a very good point because there seems to be something here that WIC is good, pay more money into it. It can be good at adequately funded levels right now, and I am not sure why people are trying to run away from that. It is possible that the program is good as is. I think, and the gentleman has already suggested, we should try to increase the efficiency of it. I think that there is some waste in it. Twenty-five percent of the money goes to administration. I think we could do a better job and feed more children from that, and less bureaucrats. But to add money to a program that has a $200 million carryover, a $200 million surplus, if the gentleman will, and a program that is already completely fully funded is ridiculous, and to take it away from American farmers is even worse.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the gentleman is on the Specialty Commodities Committee. Now on these programs, to make sure, is WIC fully funded?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina for introducing this bill. I think it is very important that we recognize that maybe these horses are not indigenous to the island but they do add and enhance the beauty and the preservation of it. I represent coastal Georgia, and we have Cumberland Island there where there is a herd of wild horses. These horses are also of Spanish descent. The interesting thing about Cumberland Island is that the environmental community wants to eliminate the horses. Their reasoning is that it is not indigenous. Not all environmentalists feel this way, but many of them do. They come up with very specious reasons for doing so. We were told last year that the Cumberland horse population had been going up 15 percent a year for the last 10 years. Upon researching it within our office we found that the horse population on Cumberland Island had in fact been in the 250 to 260 range for about 10 years, and there was not an increase in the horse population. We further found this year after another census was done that the horse population had in fact declined. So I think it is very important that we recognize that on wild horse populations, many times we are arguing not necessarily based on science but based on political correctness. I believe that the gentleman from North Carolina is doing the right thing. Let the folks down there decide. Let them work with the biologists, get the emotion of the Park Service who sometimes gets involved in the politics on the politically correct politics, which says that nonindigenous animals have to go. I think that this is a great piece of legislation, and I enthusiastically support it. I hope the day does not come when we have to have similar legislation to protect the wild horses on Cumberland Island. Right now they are being protected, but it does take a nudge to the Park Service.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to talk about Chinagate figure John Huang because he had a real tough job. As the president of his holding company, Hip Hing, a subsidiary of Lippo Group, he had to work many, many long hours. See, when one's only asset is a vacant parking lot, we would not believe the pressures they are under. Nevertheless he had the time to get deeply involved in Democrat politics, and when he donated $50,000, no one raised an eye about how a vacant parking lot attendant could afford such largess. Of course they did not know he was reimbursed by his parent company, the one-half Chinese Communist government owned Lippo Group, but now even Democrats admit this was an illegal donation and apparently only the tip of the egg roll.