Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Per family, that is not going to make or break you necessarily. You are going to be able to buy some more stuff with it and it is going to be good, but it is going to help 11 million kids. Let me give the gentleman some fun facts on taxes. The Tax Code itself is 5.6 million words. It is 7 times longer than the Bible, according to the Heritage Foundation. Americans spent last year about $225 billion to comply with the Tax Code, and they devoted 5.4 billion hours to comply with it. And the Tax Foundation estimates that the median two-earner family paid 39.4 percent of its income in taxes last year, which had increased from 38.1 percent in 1995. And in 1955 the median two-income family just paid 27. 7 percent of income taxes. That is 10.7 percent less than what that same family paid in 1996. Those are real numbers, and I will be happy to share those with anybody who wants.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, this is a very old story but it is a very good story, I guess that is why it has lasted so long, about the guy who is driving down the road and sees a farmer who has a pig. The pig has two wooden legs where the ham should be and he stops and says to the farmer, ``I have got to ask you about that pig. I have never seen a pig with two wooden legs. What is going on here?'' He said, ``Oh, let me tell you about that pig. That is a very special pig. About 2 years ago, my little boy was out on the pond when it was frozen and the ice cracked and he fell in and that pig dived right in and grabbed the boy by the collar, pulled him out and saved his life.'' And the man said, ``That is impressive.'' And the farmer said, ``Well, that is not all. A couple years ago, a guy was breaking into our house at night. We were sleeping. The guy had a gun in his hand. The pig leaped on him and knocked him over. And the guy ran out the door and ran and the police caught him. That is a special pig.'' Then he said, ``Well, why does he have two wooden legs?'' And the farmer said, ``I am not quite through. I have got to tell you another story. Then our house caught on fire about 6 months ago. The pig ran in, pulled us out of bed, woke us up and saved the entire family. That is one special pig.'' And the guy says to the farmer, ``Well, I still do not understand. Why does it have two wooden legs?'' And the farmer said, ``Well, it is very simple. You don't slaughter a pig like that all at once. That is a special pig.'' And that is what is happening to the middle class, day in day out. We pay for Bosnia. I said, ``we.'' I am middle class. Middle class pays for Bosnia. Middle class pays for Desert Storm. Middle class pays for Medicare. Middle class pays for the Park Service. Middle class pays for Medicaid. I am saying good programs here, but it is paid for on the backs of the middle class. And yet year after year, the taxes are just creeping up and up and up. Today, a two-income family with a household income of $55,000 is paying $22,000 in taxes on an average. Which means, the second income, that spouse is working strictly for the Government. They may be working for a dry cleaners, may be working for an insurance company or bank, but the reality is when you are paying $22,000 in taxes on a $55,000 income, the second income goes straight to Uncle Sam, you are working for the Government.

Mr. KINGSTON. If both the gentlemen would yield, let me just ask both of my colleagues, quiz time: What do these countries have in common? Australia, Canada, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kuwait, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay? What do they have in common?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, with Father's Day coming up, what can we do to help dads and to help parents and help children? Our tax burden right now is one of the biggest problems of raising kids. I know. I have a family of four. If you have a combined income of $55,000, $22,000 of that goes to taxes. Indeed, there are 62 taxes hidden in a gallon of gas and 109 in a loaf of bread. The Republican bill gives much needed middle class tax relief, for capital gains tax, HOPE scholarships, IRA expansion, death tax penalty, and, most importantly, to the fathers on Father's Day the $500 per child tax credit. Tax relief gives dads more time to stay at home to spend time with their children and impart values for the next generation. Unless the critics continue with the class envy that they are so clever at and so good, let me say that 71 percent of these taxes go to people with incomes of $75,000 or less and only 1.2 percent with incomes over $200,000. This is a middle class tax cut for fathers, and it is the Republican tax plan. I hope our Democrats will join us in supporting it. The following shows the amount of tax relief received by people of various income categories over a five year period, according to data provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation: Under $20,000, -$5.5 billion (4.7%); $20,000 to $75,000, -$83.5 billion (71.7%); $75,000 to $100,000, -$19.3 billion (16.6%); $100,000 to $200,000, -$6.7 billion (5.8%); $200,000+, -$1.4 billion (1.2%).

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, to understand why the President vetoed the disaster bill, thus denying many of the victims the needed relief, we have to understand samplematics. Sample matics is yet another Democrat attempt to redo mathematics as we know it. It works like this. Let us look at traditional math. The traditional math will tell us, if we have 10 people in this House, 5 in this House, and 10 in this House, we would have a total of 25 people. Correct? Similar Math 101, no big problem. Samplematics, according to the Democrats, if we have 10 people in this building, we count 10; 5 in this one, we count 5. The third building, we take a lunch break, so we just say, well, that building might have 50 people in it; and, therefore, we come up with 65. Even though the Constitution, even though the law says we have to count people in a census head by head, what the Democrats want to do is give census the day off and say, estimate when you feel like it. That is samplematics. That is why the President of the United States canceled disaster relief, and that is why we in Congress have to send him a message to quit playing games and give the people the relief they need.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in strong support of the Sanford amendment to reduce this bill by $265 million, and I also wanted to respond to some of the previous comments. We have been told that, if the Sanford amendment passes, America would be sticking our heads in the sands and withdrawing from our international responsibilities. Let me give my colleagues some numbers here. This is $265 million, a lot of money, Mr. Chairman. However, compare that with the overall amount of the bill, which is $6.3 billion. In addition, later on this year we will pass a foreign aid bill which will be approximately $12 billion, or somewhere thereabout. In addition to that, we will be spending around $260 billion on defense. Those are huge numbers. Mr. Chairman, if I had long hair, this amendment is not even clipping off an inch or two of my long hair. What it does is it plucks out a few of the hairs out of my head. I will still have plenty of hair in my head with or without the Sanford amendment. But I would suggest and recommend strongly that we do have to clip, we do have to trim, because we are over $5 trillion in debt. That is what this is about. This is about trying to make the future good for our children by not enslaving them year after year from deficit spending and increasing the debt. I want to give my colleagues three areas where we could find savings in this bill. No. 1, we spend hours, and we have already had two or three amendments on the United Nations. One of them talked about pulling America out of the United Nations, another asked for a study so they could find better ways to restructure. Yet, with this bill, we are increasing support for international organizations $68 million. That seems a little odd when we have so many Members who want to actually cut out spending. We have heard that this amendment will cause a lot of the overseas real estate to go in disrepair and have roofs that leak. And yet, Mr. Chairman, we have already passed the Bachus amendment that moved to sell unnecessary real estate that should give us a 5-year savings of $109 million. Now, that is rather odd, Mr. Chairman, when we are told that this amendment would actually cripple our overseas real estate investment, because the bill itself calls for an increase of $389 million for the next 2 years, each year, for new real estate. What is it we are trying to do? On the one hand we are trying to reduce, and on the other hand we are trying to expand. What this amendment does is it forces us to get our priorities right. What is the third area? One of the reasons why most Members are ultimately going to support this bill is because it does consolidate and eliminate two agencies, the Arms Control Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency. Now, as one who believes in smaller government, I am excited by this. I think it is very important to consolidate and eliminate duplicative agencies and commissions; and yet this, apparently, is not going to save any money. So why are we doing it; for window decoration? If we are not doing it for more efficiency, why are we doing it? And if we are doing it for inefficiency, is it not true that it will save money? Mr. Chairman, if we are truthful and sincere about our desire to reduce the size of government and to consolidate and eliminate unnecessary agencies, certainly we are doing that with the implied goal of saving taxpayers' dollars. The $265 million is a lot of money back in the First District of Georgia, as I am sure it is in all 435 congressional districts; but in terms of a bill that has a cost of over $6.3 billion, in terms of $260 billion in defense that we will be spending around the globe, in terms of $12 billion in foreign aid we will be spending, this $265 million is small and it is reasonable. But it is an important and symbolic first step toward fiscal responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to pass the Sanford amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in 1973 two significant education-related events occurred in my life. No. 1, Clark Central High School teacher Bertha Musick retired after 37 years of teaching. Mrs. Musick had taught social studies, science, and English in elementary school, junior high school, and high school, but during my time in high school she was known as the 11th grade teacher in that feared and hated subject of grammar. On the 12-year bumpy road to a high school diploma, Bertha Musick was the gatekeeper. If you could not pass 11th grade grammar, you could not get a diploma, and Mrs. Musick did not give away any freebies. I, along with most Athens, GA, kids, started hearing about Mrs. Musick's 11th grade class as early as in the 9th grade. Pray you do not get her, it is the hardest class at Clark Central, the upper classmen would warn us, yet nothing could be done to prevent it. Student placement and teacher selection was done in some dark, secret chamber far beyond the influence of watchful eyes of 16-year-old students. What would I do if I got Mrs. Musick? The luck of the draw was such that I did get Mrs. Musick, and I guess from her perspective, she got me. My deepest fears were realized: How was I, a mere average kid, going to live up to her high standards? My first task was to know all of her many ground rules. She was known as a strict no-nonsense instructor; no talking, no napping, no note-passing, and never forget your grammar book. I did all these things, and because I knew she was not going to change, I would have to. Mrs. Musick, let me say this now if you are listening: I only tonight feel comfortable in confessing that I did forget my grammar book once, and it was one of the most dramatic days of my junior year, but somehow you never noticed. But I can promise you this, it only happened one time. My game plan was to try to fit in as a quiet, even smart student. I decided that I could get by being unnoticed and not rocking the boat, stay under the radar screen. But I soon found I had a problem, because in the 1970's in Clark Central High School students in each grade were divided by ability. They were four groups. I know the board of education had more suitable terms, but for us kids the four groups were known as the smart group, the medium smart group, the medium group, and the dumb group. The smart group contained all the future doctors, lawyers, mechanical engineers, accountants, miscellaneous eggheads, National Merit Scholars, and professors' kids. You see, Athens, GA, is a college town. All the University of Georgia professors' kids were in the smart, advanced placement class. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a professor's child, but through some genetic defect I inherited none of the accompanying brains. I was in the average group. But early in 1971, through some quirk of the board of education, I was put into the dumb group. I had never been in this group before, and it bothered me greatly. How did this happen? What strange alignment of the stars put me in this place? Not knowing what to do, I stumbled into the guidance counselor's office; another great lady, Mrs. Hackey. I asked for her advice. In short, she told me the decision to transfer would be made by Mrs. Musick. My heart sank. She will think I am dumb. She will not have anything to do with me. Teachers like that think less of you, not more of you. A week passed, and I still lacked the nerve to talk to her. Finally I could not stand it. I caught Mrs. Musick after class one day. ``You see, Mrs. Musick, I have already read a lot of these books that we are supposed to be reading, and I just think I would be better off in the medium class.'' She replied, ``There is no room in the medium class. Besides, you have a conflict with algebra. What about the advanced group?" Was she joking? The advanced, that was where all the real smart kids were like Richard Royce and Alice Cooper and David Bowman, certified geniuses from way back, kids who made 1500 on their SAT score and played with slide rules when the rest of us were fiddling around with Etch-a-Sketch. I stammered, ``Well, not that much of a leap.'' ``Do you want to stay in the class you are in now?'' I dreaded the thought. She looked at me and said, ``I think you can do it.'' Now, was not this a surprise? Teachers like this do not give students like me a break. This was strange indeed. A teacher I feared and fretted about giving me a promotion, based on speculation. No one had ever done this for me. I had had plenty of good teachers. I liked plenty of them, and they liked me. But no one had ever gone out on a limb on my behalf. Then something even more wonderful happened. If Mrs. Musick thought I could do it and she believed in me, maybe I could do it and maybe I could believe in myself also. Mr. Speaker, this inspiration given to me by a schoolteacher over 25 years ago always has stuck with me. I transferred to the new class and got to work. I doubled my efforts, my enthusiasm for learning. I did not want to let the other kids know I did not really fit in, and I sure did not want to let Mrs. Musick down. During the Christmas holiday, I worked on my term paper for the winter quarter. I read ``For Whom the Bell Tolls'', ``Thanatopis'', ``Tess of the D'ubervilles'', ``Red Badge of Courage'', ``The Last Leaf''. I ended up the year making A and B's, mostly B's, but B's never felt so good. But above all, I was in the advanced class in everything else, algebra, science and history. What else can I say about the woman who made this possible? She was strict but she was clear. She gave us the rules. We understood them and we followed them, and we if we did not, punishment was sure and swift. There was no pink slip, no parent-teacher conference or gray area. Fairness and certainty were her trademarks in discipline. On her subject matter, she was passionate. No sentence has been constructed that she could not diagram. Infinitives did not get split and participles did not get dangled on her watch. In fact, I am still a little afraid now, if she is watching, she will catch all my mistakes. On literature there was none so devoted. One day it snowed, and in Athens, Georgia a snow day to students was worshipped like manna from heaven. No school. While all of the students rushed to the hills for sledding, Mrs. Musick later confessed she could not wait to get back to a good book or two, and with good reason. She was intimately acquainted with Fitzgerald, Thoreau, Emerson, Huxley, Whitman, Oliver Wendell Holmes and company. She was their peer and they were her friends. Once Lewis Nix suggested Hemingway partied too much in Key West. Mrs. Musick neither confirmed nor denied this but took us all to a higher plane with her admonishment, ``Do not talk about one of America's greatest authors in such fashion. He went through a lot in the war.'' A classy way to handle such a statement. Her love of literature was contagious and many Clark Central students left with reading as a lifetime hobby. I will close with this. I still do not know what Thanatopis means, but I do know what the poem was about. I traveled with Hemingway to Mount Kilamanjaro, spent some time with Thoreau at Walden Pond, dined with Fitzgerald and Gatsby at West Egg and wept with Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Gettysburg battleground. As they have become immortal, so has Mrs. Musick. How many students like me left her class with a lifetime habit of reading and yearning for knowledge or even an appreciation of grammar? Our lives live on in the influence that we have on others, and Mrs. Musick's legacy is indelibly etched on thousands of Athens, Georgia kids. I am blessed to have had her and forever better for the experience. I am sorry for those who did not. I started out, Mr. Speaker, saying there were two significant things that happened in Athens, GA. One, Mrs. Musick retired. The other, Jack Kingston graduated. After 12 years of study, I walked down the aisle with my diploma, a product of lots of classroom hours and homework and wonderful teachers like Mrs. Bertha Musick.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, when Congress passed the historic balanced budget agreement by a vote of 333, it set forth a very good tone for Congress and the White House and the Senate to work together to move us toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. And although this resolution is very important, it is only the first step. There will be a lot of skirmishes down the road over taxes, education, Medicare, health care in general, and so forth like that. One of the things that the Republicans have done, however, to make sure this does not lead us to a gridlock and a Government shutdown is that we have passed the Gekas-Wynn Government shutdown prevention provision. What that says is that if Congress and the President have not agreed on a balanced budget or the appropriations bills by September 30, then the Government would continue at 100 percent of the 1997 funding level and that would prevent a shutdown. Now, for some reason the President is against this. I hope that he will change his mind and support this so that we will not have the Government shutdown as we did last year.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, despite some obvious unhappiness on the far left, the balanced budget agreement passed yesterday on a vote, a bipartisan vote, of 333 to 99, an overwhelming number of Democrats and Republicans passed this. It is a budget that balances by 2002. It provides permanent tax relief for the middle class, $500 per child tax credit. Medicare is safe from bankruptcy and solvent completely until the year 2007. We have to look ahead. We, together, on a bipartisan basis need to work for a drug-free America. Drugs are a poison to society, they are involved with crime, violence, spousal and child abuse. We have to address drugs on a bipartisan basis. We have to look forward to education, but the focus on the classroom and learning, and not on the Washington bureaucracy. We also have to look at out-of-wedlock pregnancy. For 15 years the number of out-of- wedlock births has almost tripled. Over 70 percent of all juveniles in State reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes. These are the challenges that lie ahead. We can work best on a bipartisan basis to work toward solutions.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding, because I too join him in this almost fetish about creating new laws, and yet, no interest at all in enforcing the current laws, which may or may not have been broken. I add to the gentleman's list of questions; when the Democrats talk about campaign finance reform, do they want to find out about the international contributions that were apparently illegal made to the Democrat Party and the Clinton White House? Did they influence foreign policy? I would like to know from the Democrats whether the Democrat operative, John Huang, broke campaign finance laws by fund-raising when he was on the Government payroll. I would like to find out whether John Huang broke the laws by coordinating donations from non-U.S. citizens who have ties with his former employer, and with no apparent reasons, what was the pattern that they were given to the Clinton folks and the Democrat National Party? Did Mr. Huang compromise the U.S. national security by sharing secret Government information with his former employer overseas? This is a very relevant security question. Do the Democrats want to find out if White House officials, while on Government payroll, illegally raised funds for the Democrat Party? I would like to know about the computer database at the White House. Was it legitimate or was it just there to keep track of Democrat donors? I would like to know whether the White House improperly used the FBI, the National Security Council, or the CIA to pursue fund raising. I think all of this is very important. I would like to know how long was the President raising money in the Lincoln bedroom, and does the President plan to continue doing this? I would like to know, if the Democrat Party took all of this money so earnestly, why have they had to return so much of it? I believe that we have a legitimate reason to be talking about campaign finance reform, but I also think a major part of it is to talk about implementing current law. Before we go on with new grandiose plans blaming it on the system, let us talk about the current ethics situation over at the White House. I think that, if the Democrat Party insists on ignoring these very pertinent and relevant questions, which have far more to do with national security than they do with partisan differences, then I think they are doing the country a disservice. We in this Congress have a security obligation as well as a campaign finance reform obligation.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the balanced budget agreement last night, many people have asked, is it consistent to cut taxes and try to reduce the deficit? To this I say yes. Here is why. For every dollar we send to Washington as taxpayers, Washington spends over a $1.50. You can spend your money a lot more efficiently than my friends in Congress. I can spend your money. If you have more money in your pocketbook, you are going to buy more records, more clothes, more socks, more shoes, more whatever. When you do that, small businesses expands. And when they expand, they create more jobs. When more jobs are available, more people go to work. When more people go to work, less are on public assistance and more pay in taxes. Revenues actually increase. This was proven both by President Reagan and President Kennedy. The other side to that, though, is as these revenues increase because of a tax cut, we have to hold the line on spending. Last night's budget agreement gives us the opportunity to both reduce taxes, let people spend their own money and hold the line on spending here in Washington.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof] for yielding. It is interesting that we passed the balanced budget agreement today, because it seems like years ago when we were up 24 hours doing what we have been doing. I wanted to speak specifically on the tax relief portion of it, because for too long Americans have sent far too much of their hard- earned dollars to Washington, DC. This bipartisan balanced budget agreement provides for the first time significant tax relief and serves as a first step toward reducing the outrageous tax burden on American middle-class families. The agreement guarantees that American families will get a tax relief that they desperately need. It provides new tax credits for higher education and a reduction in the death tax, and it also gives capital gains tax relief that will end double taxation and spur an explosion of economic growth and bring new jobs and renewed prosperity to the working people all around America. Perhaps the most important, however, is that the balanced budget agreement finally makes one of the key promises of the Contract With America a reality. At last, it gives a long overdue $500 per child tax credit to American working families. So let me say to all the parents struggling to make ends meet, the parents who burn the candles at both ends in order to put food on the table, the parents who sacrifice their own needs and give everything that they have got to make sure their children have a bright opportunity, we have finally heard you and we have finally done something about it. We recognize that nothing we say or do in Congress is as important as the daily work you undertake, the work of raising the next generations of Americans. We have no more right to take such a large chunk out of your paycheck each month as we would to snatch the bread directly out of the mouths of your children. Mr. Speaker, being a mom or dad is the most sacred obligation and the most awesome responsibility that anyone can possibly assume. Family is the backbone not only of this great Nation but of all civil society. It was Aristotle who observed that the state is made up of households. Without strong households, even a nation as mighty as the United States will surely crumble. The Republicans' $500 per child tax credit will allow families to keep an extra $500 of their own money for each child. That is $500 that parents themselves will be spending on their children's welfare instead of giving it to Washington bureaucrats. I do not doubt that almost every family in America will spend that $500 more wisely than we would in Washington. It is hard to raise a family these days. I know, I am a father of four children, and my wife and I work constantly trying to do the right things for our kids. It is very, very difficult. But the world is complicated, probably more complicated and more threatening than when I was being raised in the 1960's and the 1970's, and parents have to work harder. It seems like everybody has two-income families. And sometimes parents, moms and dads, are just ships crossing in the night and they do not get to sit down at the family dinner table anymore and impart information from generation to generation. But it is very, very important that we do, that we spend time as the family unit together. Family tax credit is Washington, not just returning money back to the family, not taking money from the family, but actually returning power and responsibility back to the moms and the dads and also saying, because we are going to be taking less from you, you will be able to spend a little bit more time with each other. Mr. Speaker, let me yield back. I wanted to make a few other points, but I think it is just so important that we all recognize that part of it. And again, balancing the budget is not about numbers, it is about people.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, 1969, ``Mod Squad'' on TV, American Vietnam students in the streets and Neil Armstrong on the moon, and the budget was balanced for the last time. How long ago was that? A Burger King Whopper could be purchased for 39 cents, a Coke for 15 cents, a gallon of gas, 30 cents, a Ford Maverick, $2,995, and a Ford Pinto, $1,919. Needless to say, that is what we had at our house. The Beatles had just released ``The White album,'' the Stones were crying ``Gimme Shelter,'' and Jimi Hendrix was ending out the year with his fine album, ``Band of Gypsies.'' He was still alive then. And then the best memorabilia of all, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know if I should show this photo or not, but after the previous speech, Woodstock, August 1969, and again the budget was balanced. Mr. Speaker, today, if we want, we can listen to these great albums. We can vote for a balanced budget, and we can get the budget on Internet. The best technology from yesterday and the best of today is all before Members of Congress today in one single afternoon. Please vote for the balanced budget.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends, have they ever wondered what it is like to be a Democrat millionaire? Well, if we look in Congressional Daily on page 4 today, we can get some insight into the mind of a Democrat millionaire. We have a Senator, Senator Kerry on the other side, who was in danger of receiving a parking ticket for having the family car parked in front of a fire hydrant. I do not know if he got a parking ticket or not, but what did he do? He moved his family's millions to move the fire hydrant. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if one has millions and millions of dollars and if one parks in front of a fire hydrant, do not worry about a ticket, just pay to have the hydrant moved. So in the exclusive Beacon Hill area of Boston, the civic association says, this has never, ever happened before. A guy named Peter Thompson said, this is a first even for Beacon Hill. Remember that. If you have lots of money and want to park in front of a hydrant, just pay to have the hydrant moved.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the ranking member and I could have a slight dialog on this. Last night we had discussed the possibility of an amendment or warning to the bill to make sure that the money only goes to the families and the children rather than to the bureaucracy to the extent that it can, and my colleague had raised some concerns about the administrative costs being high. There is about, as my colleague knows, $15 million in the $76 million that will go straight to administration. I think it is the desire of many people to say that if we are increasing the money, let us not feed the bureaucrat, the bureaucracy; let us feed the children. And so my question to my colleague, not amending the bill, but would the minority side work in the spirit of the intention of the amendment to say that as much money as possible goes to children and women and not to the bureaucracy?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me, in response to the ranking members's comments on the complete agreement, that which is legitimately needed to make the program work; I agree that it is not administrative costs. The intention with the amendment was to have it broad enough so that the USDA could define those essential services. We are in agreement on that. I just want to make sure that as much money as possible goes to the end user and as little as necessary goes to bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough discussion on this.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it is too bad that everything has to be reduced to rhetoric and emotionalism here. The respected ranking member herself has asked a lot of questions about the WIC numbers. We all have questions about it. It was just said, a 2- percent carryover is what is needed. That is $75 million. We already have $100 million in there. We do not need the additional. However, we asked USDA on April 17, last month, less than a month ago, what would happen if they put another $36 million in there. The participation would be approximately 7.4 million children or people. Now the question is how will that number change if we put another $36 million in there, run up to $76 million, and again the USDA, which my colleagues keep quoting, and I respectfully disagree with the numbers; I have got them right here from the USDA. They say the participation level will not increase from 7.4. So we are not talking taking children off.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to talk about the merits of WIC, we are not here to talk about feeding children. Indeed, this committee has supported WIC to the tune of full funding last year, $3.7 billion. This committee has supported increasing WIC $36 million. This committee has supported increasing funding in the carryover up to $147 million. Also this committee, to make sure, has asked the USDA what their numbers are. I have the numbers here. They are open to anybody. The number of participants at the additional $36 million is 7.4 million. The number of participants at the $76 million is 7.4. In addition, we even had an April 11, 1997, memo from Mary Ann Keeffe, the Acting Undersecretary of Food and Consumer Services, that states that she believes the State projections of 7.4 million is optimistic, and that the USDA budget assumptions of 7.2 are more realistic. In either case, Mr. Chairman, we are covered without spending additional dollars. My question would be, to my friend across the aisle, would she support an amendment to make sure we are only feeding children and not bureaucrats, that stipulates that none of this money can be used for the bureaucracy? Because it is time we start talking a little bit about the WIC bureaucracy. It is 25 percent of the overhead, which means they will get $15 million of this vote today, $15 million goes to bureaucrats, not children. It is a program that already 33 percent of the participants are not documented or verified as being eligible, Mr. Chairman. Six percent have been called ineligible, but they are still on it. Yet, the Democrats have not supported a study in the committee. I would love the gentlewoman to support a study. Would the gentlewoman support a study? Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record points against the Kaptur- Riggs amendment. Talking Points Against Kaptur/Riggs We asked USDA to give us information on impacts to the program with a $36 million supplemental and a $76 million supplemental. According to USDA, participation will not change whether they get $36 million or $76 million--remains at 7.4 million. The $38 million we are providing is a supplemental appropriation. It is in addition to the $3.7 billion the program has already received for this fiscal year. We have not reduced or cut the program. WIC got $3.7 billion in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill and will get $38 million more in this supplemental bill. Program participation fluctuates monthly. The Dems want to keep using the October monthly participation rate of 7.47 million because it is the highest number. We should counter with the December participation rate of 7.28 million. We know participation dropped from October to December, went up in January, and dropped again in February. In a memo dated April 11, 1997 from Mary Ann Keeffe the Acting Under Secretary for Food and Consumer Service, she states that her agency continues to believe that state projections of maintaining 7.4 million participants is optimistic and the USDA budget assumptions of 7.2 million are more realistic. USDA plans to carryover $100 million with a $38 million supplemental. It plans to carryover $135 million with a $76 million supplemental. In addition, States are allowed to spend forward or carryover funds on their books. We know states spent forward over $60 million into fiscal year 1997. The program needs a certain amount of carryover because of the way the program operates. USDA has said that about a 2% carryover would be needed. 2% of the program would be about $75 million, so there's a $20 to $25 million that could be used if it was really needed. In this bill we give the Secretary the authority to use the Fund for Rural America for WIC. There is a $47 million unobligated balance in the Fund for Rural America. The Secretary could use these funds for WIC if it's that critical. The President's budget submitted in February said carryover funds from FY96 to FY97 would be $145 million. In a USDA table sent to the Committee on April 16, 1997, we now find out that it was $202 million. A USDA study of WIC income documentation and verification policy indicates that 33.3% of state agencies allow the participant to self declare income levels without documentation or verification. Another USDA study indicates that 5.7% of WIC participants receive WIC benefits, but are not eligible. This is over $200 million that could be saved and used for those that truly need to be in the program.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, so that could take 3 or 4 years. Does one ever get to a stage where one has a trial by jury?

Mr. KINGSTON. Now in that atmosphere where Americans are being----

Mr. KINGSTON. No mattresses and no sheets.