Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I understand that translates to about 43 cents on the dollar going to the cost of litigation. Now, it does not matter where you are on the environmental debate, we all should come together and say this is broken and we need to fix it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. First of all, I want to say to some of the previous speakers, here is a copy of the Constitution that talks, in article 5, about the amendment procedure. Clearly, it would not be in there unless our forefathers anticipated the need to amend it. I also recommend to you something else you probably have not read, the bill itself, which talks about how you can close a corporate loophole. I am going to put both of these here if you want to take the time to read them tonight before you vote on these and find out how absurd some of the arguments are. Here is why I support this thing. Forty-five percent of the income, the household income of the middle class family, goes to taxes now. Two-income families all over America, you know what that means, it means the second employee, one spouse is working for the Government. You can say, no, no, no, not my husband, not my wife. He is a real estate agent, she sells clothes, he is a barber. That is not true. They are working for the Government. They might be getting their paycheck through the private sector. That money goes straight to the Government. These people are government employees. The middle class has had enough of this. I was here in 1993 when the big Clinton tax increase came through here, and that 15 minutes, which is the traditional voting stance, the 15 minutes came and the majority was not there. So, what happened? The Democratic Speaker, the Democrat Majority Leader, the Democrat Whip went around the House, and this place looked like a beehive, all the buzzing around, because you want a road, you want a bridge, you want a highway, you want a new committee assignment. The clock kept going, 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, squeezing out that last vote, giving away that last bridge, that last committee assignment or whatever it took to get it just over the hump. And, of course, the votes where there, and the tax increase went by two votes. And what happened as a result of it? The government got bigger, bigger. Yes, the deficits went down, the government got bigger. What would have happened without it? the deficit would have gone down. The government would have got smaller. That upsets a lot of people who like agencies, commissions, bureaucracies, red tape, micromanagement out of Washington. But for John and Sue, middle class, they want less taxes, not more government. Support this. It is good legislation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that last year the group that wanted to nationalize health care has taken exception with the Republican Party because we want to go beyond the portability issue. What is it that we want to do that we disagree? Medical savings accounts, giving consumers choices rather than command-and-control Washington Bureaucrats. We want to stop waste, fraud, and abuse. I realize the Democratic Party is partial to waste, and I can understand that. We want to stop medical malpractice, and we have tort reform. The Hill newspaper, though, explains the Democrats' position on that with $2.2 million in campaign contributions last year going to political candidates, 94 percent Democrats. I will put this in the Record, Mr. Speaker. That is why they are against this. It is a tort reform issue. It is a trial lawyers' issue. They are also against small businesses. I like the idea of pet shops, clothes stores, bicycle shops, combining together to get economies of scale that large corporations can. My small businesses are in favor of that, as are all small businesses all over America. Then again, the Democratic Party has never been partial to small businesses. What is it on long-term health care? We want long-term health care. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. The article referred to follows: Trial attorneys Seek More Hill Clout (By Craig Karmin) In a move that would increase the political power of trial lawyers and benefit Democratic congressional candidates, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is planning a new program to encourage its members to contribute to ATLA- endorsed candidates. These individual contributions would supplement ATLA's political action committee, which was the sixth largest contributor during the 1994 elections. It donated more than $2.2 million to congressional campaigns, with Democrats receiving 94 percent of the funds. In 1995, despite Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the association gave 79 percent of its $700,000 in campaign contributions to Democrats. The political and financial clout of the trial lawyers has been credited with President Clinton's threat to veto the product liability law, and the group has come under fire from congressional Republicans. According to a letter the association sent to the Federal Election Commission, ATLA would ``obtain advance commitments from its members to contribute a specified amount'' to certain candidates. It would further ``recommend the size of contributions that members should send to particular candidates'' and ``suggest when members should mail their contributions.'' The FEC met last week on the subject and is expected to approve ATLA's request to engage in these activities in the near future. But these contributions could be prohibited under bipartisan campaign finance reform bills pending in both the House and Senate. ATLA contends that these contributions are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. The association's plan to strongly urge its 60,000 members to contribute to congressional campaigns would expand the power and influence of an already formidable special interest on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Josh Goldstein of the Center for Responsive Politics said he thought the ATLA plan would provide ``a way for trial lawyers to distinguish themselves from other lawyers when giving to campaigns,'' and therefore ``give them more bang for their buck on Capitol Hill.'' ATLA's program encouraged Democrats about their chances in the fall elections. ``I think it could impact a number of races because it will probably benefit Democrats more than Republicans,'' said Don Sweizer, a Democratic consultant and former finance director at the Democratic National Committee. ``It's good news for our team.'' Republicans seemed to agree. ``In general, I think Republicans should be concerned,'' said Dawn Sciarrino, a vice president at Brockmeyer, Allen and Associates, a Republican consulting firm. ``This helps them funnel a great deal of money to the candidates of their choice.'' Pam Liapakis, president of ATLA, said that she was inspired by a similar program at EMILY's List, an association whose contributors give money to Democratic pro-choice women candidates. Liapakis expects to have the program ``up and running'' well before the November elections. But if campaign reformers have their way, this could be the only election in which ATLA, EMILY's List, or any other organization can engage in what is sometimes referred to as ``bundling'' contributions. Bipartisan campaign finance reform bills submitted in the House and Senate would ban this kind of activity. Liapakis, however, said she believed ATLA's program was within the law. ``There is a right under the First Amendment to communicate and to participate in elections,'' she said.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this health care debate, we have to ask ourselves: What are the Washington liberal Democrats afraid of? Why are the Democrats so anticonsumer choice? Why are they so against power to the people? Why are they doing everything possible to defeat medical savings accounts, which would allow their own constituents to have more health care choices without the edicts and interference of insurance companies, health care agencies, managed care business types? Why are Democrats afraid of consumer choice? It is simple. If their constituents find out that they are in a better position to make choices that suit themselves better than what Washington liberals want them to do, then their consumers and constituents are going to figure out, you know, ``We do not need all the bureaucracy that the Democrats keep taxing us for. In fact, we do not need these Democrats.'' They will probably invite them to come home. That, Mr. Speaker, seems to be why they are so afraid of anything that would give more decision-making power to the American consumers and less to the Washington bureaucracy. Vote for the Republican health care reform plan.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the Democrats would bring in this special interest thing. The integrity of the debate; is it possible to have a honest debate any more at all? I mean if my colleagues want to talk about special interests, read yesterday's Hill newspaper article. The American Trial Lawyers just gave $2.2 million to candidates last year, 94 percent going to Democrats opposed to this bill because it has tort reform. My colleagues want to talk special interests? Weigh on in, because my colleagues are the ones who are in the pocket of the American trial bar. Let us get to the real issue here. Medical savings accounts gives choice to Americans. It takes it away from our Washington bureaucrat command and control allies and puts it in the hands of the American public where it belongs. That is what our constituents want, and once they start making their own decisions on health care, they are going to decide a whole lot of other things, like they may need somebody else to represent them in Congress. I think it is important to also know that our colleagues are standing one more time against small businesses by opposing legislation that would allow pet stores and clothing stores and barber shops to pool together and buy their insurance as a group.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Larry King Live, June 4, 1992.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important really when we do have a dialog to be factual about it. We have been accused of cutting student loans, and yet our budget calls for increasing student loans from $24 to $36 billion. We have been accused of cutting Medicaid, and yet our budget calls for an increase from $89 to $124 billion. Of course, we have been accused of cutting Medicare, but our budget goes from $180 billion to $290 billion. I think it is important that when we talk about this that we divide the facts from the rhetoric. Now, one of the things that we have been trying to do with our reforms is to balance things, and I know our friend from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] is here, and we wanted to talk about yes, there are things we are trying to fix, but we are not trying to destroy things, specifically in the environment. I do a lot of camping, and I plan to continue to do a lot of camping. I have 4 children, and my 12-year-old daughter last year started hunting with me. My 10-year-old son is coming along, and I want that environment there for them. I want there to be plenty of species out there. I want the endangered species to be protected. I want private property rights to be protected as well. Mr. Speaker, I really get offended when the President accuses us of trying to gut environmental legislation when the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency all were created in the early 1970's under a Republican administration. Let me yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to emphasize what the gentleman is saying by pointing out that President Theodore Roosevelt started the National Park System, and, of course, he was a great Republican at the time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. We have also been joined by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who wanted to comment on a couple of points as well.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield on that, I think that that is a real important idea or concept. How it has been explained to me is that if you take, say, a wading pool that kids are in, not a swimming pool but a wading pool, the little blue, pink plastic kind, and you pour a gallon of pesticide in there, then back in the 1930s, that is what they detect. But today, if you take an eyedropper and into mom and dad's big swimming pool, 34,000 gallons, and you put a little drop of the pesticide in that pool, today we could detect it. Yet in many, many cases, that trace of pesticide is negligible, it is noncarcinogenic, it will not hurt anybody. But because our technology is so advanced, we can detect it, and yet our laws have not kept up with that. That is what revamping the Delaney clause is all about, and it is so important because there are so many fertilizers that have been taken off the market because of this red tape interpretation of the Delaney clause, and yet other countries are still using those pesticides. So it is affecting us already, and we do need to resolve the issue, again, in a balanced way, protecting the consumer above everything else, but also utilizing the technology for our advantage and not against it.

Mr. KINGSTON. I do want to ask how you people in Michigan consume peanut butter. I would like to know more about that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman points out, though, the need for honesty and integrity in the debate is so important. We have a Superfund bill we have been trying to get reauthorized now for 2 years, and while we are speaking, only about five of the national priority sites get cleaned up each year. Only 12 percent of the polluted national prioritized sites have been cleaned up, after 15 years and $25 billion of Superfund law. It is broken. Let us fix it. There is going to be a little bit of disagreement between the manufacturers in the private sector and the environmental community, but I would suspect there is still 75 percent or 80 percent of the issue that could be moved forward right now. Mr. Speaker, I am very frustrated by the fact that in Washington, we always have to have this debate from both sides of any issue, ``The sky is falling,'' and the other side wants to accelerate the fall, join me in this fight. It is very difficult in that kind of atmosphere to have an honest debate. I know the gentleman from Maryland has been in the very center of some of these things.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to touch base on the tax situation, with April 15 approaching quickly. I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona on this, but I want to start off with a couple of fun facts, first, about out tax system, because if you are like many of your American friends this last week or two, you took time filling out your tax form. On an average, it takes 12 hours for you and your family to fill out your tax forms to the degree that you can, and then you take it to your accountant, and pay anywhere from $150 to $700 or $800, depending on where you are and how much you own and so forth. If you are a small business, it takes you 22 hours. Here is a statistic that I really like, Mr. Speaker. The IRS has 480 tax forms, and 280 of them are forms that tell you how to fill out the other forms. That is absolutely absurd. The West Publishing Co., one of the official publishers of the Federal Tax Code, published the 1994 Tax Code in two volumes. Volume 1 contains sections 1 through 1,000, and it is printed in 1,168 pages. Volume 2 is page 1,500--1,500. We have a 1,564-page Tax Code, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely absurd. The need for tax reform is urgent, it is great, it is right now. It is appropriate to look at while we are trying to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. KINGSTON. What is so important is that the average family in the 1950's paid 3 percent and today pays 24 percent in Federal income taxes. When you add in the other taxes, State and local taxes, the average middle-class family pays about 25-percent taxes. I had an opportunity to talk to a driver with UPS, United Parcel Service, in my district. He said, ``My wife works. She teaches school and has a good job, and I get a lot of overtime driving this truck. We have got three kids, and at the end of the month we do not have anything because it goes into washers and dryers and taxes and regulations and so forth.'' That is the story of the middle-class American family today. All they are doing is working for the government. Then we turn around and make them fill out a tax form that is absurd, which they cannot do. Mr. Speaker, you are on the Committee on Ways and Means. I bet you most Members of Congress cannot even fill out their own tax form. I believe that is real important. If we cannot do it, we who are setting the law, what do we expect of the American people?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have worked to repeal the 1993 Clinton tax increase on Social Security recipients. We have worked to increase the earnings limitations for American seniors. We have worked to increase the estate tax threshold from $600,000 to $750,000, and we have worked to end the marriage tax penalty and the capital gains tax, and the President vetoed that. Along with that, he vetoed a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class families. Right now in America households all over this land, from Maine to Miami to California, you can reach in your pocket and say here is $500 that was a dividend for my work this year, but it was vetoed by this President of the United States. We are not going to stop, Mr. Speaker, and talking about taxes is going to take a lot more time. We have with us the gentleman from California who wants to talk about another waste of manpower and money, and that is illegal immigration, so I want to yield to him.

Mr. KINGSTON. What is important though is we bring our laws up with our technology and bring our laws up with other levels of government to realize that when the Environmental Protection Agency started in the very early 1970's, it was just about the only and certainly the premier environmental protection agency in the country. Today in Georgia, in Maryland, in Michigan, and Arizona you have narrow groups. You have your own Environmental Protection Agency, which probably is about 10, 15 years old at this point. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to speak to the Association of State Environmental Protection Divisions a couple of months ago. I was a little bit worried because I was afraid that, well, I do not know if I am walking into a lion's den or not. They said, ``We are ready. We can handly this. We can probably do a better job of attacking pollution cleanup because we are closer to the sites, we can work with turning, or the State legislative, we can get it turned around. Do not run from it, but do not get in our way, either.'' I think that is important.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of topics we wanted to talk about tonight, and have with me my colleague from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], and we may have others joining us. But what we were going to do is talk about some of the difference between the 103d Congress, the Congress that was here in 1993 and 1994, and contrast that with the current Congress that was elected and began to serve in 1995. If you look back 2 years ago, which was my first term in Washington, and think about the changes, in 1993 the President had just passed the largest tax increase in the history of the country and then turned around and tried to nationalize or socialize medicine. At the same time, the bureaucracy did not want to get left out of the action, and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, came up with a proposal that said if you smoke in your own house and you have a domestic employee, then you must have a smoke ventilator in your own kitchen. The EEOC, meanwhile, came out with a ruling that one of the most dangerous hazards in the workplace today is religious symbols. So if you were working at the Ford plant and you had a ``Jesus saves'' T- shirt on, or if you had a necklace that had a Star of David, that was offensive. EEOC decided it was time to go after those dog-gone religious symbols in the workplace. That was the kind of thing that we had going on in the 103d Congress. Now, contrast that with the 104th Congress. We have a Congress that has cut staff by one-third, reduced its operating expenses by $67 million, and put Congress and all of its Members under the same workplace laws as the private sector. Now instead of debating should we reform welfare, we are debating how to reform welfare; instead of debating should we balance the budget, we are debating how to balance the budget. And when the crisis with Medicare came that was pointed out to us by a bipartisan committee, this Congress did the responsible thing and acted to protect and preserve it. This Congress, Mr. Speaker, is night and day compared to that that was the 103d Congress. But we have our criticism. A lot of the criticism comes from the press and its allies over at the White House, Mr. Clinton. What we were going to do tonight is talk about some of the criticism. Education, apparently Republicans do not have children, we do not care if they get educated or not. Seniors, apparently we all came from test tubes and none of us have moms or dads and we do not care what happens to their Social Security or Medicare, according to the President. Of course, the environment, we want to pave Old Faithful and level the Rocky Mountains. But what is really going on with these issues, Mr. Speaker? We want to talk a little bit about the environment tonight, we want to talk a little bit about taxes and the middle class, and we will continue through a series of discussions to talk about some of these other issues. I will yield the floor to Mr. Hayworth at this time.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to illustrate that on a true case that happened in Riverside, CA, where the residents in a neighborhood were not allowed to dig fire trenches because it would endanger kangaroo rat habitat. And so fire breaks were not dug, and a fire came. Thirty homes were destroyed, but, in addition to that, over 20,000 acres of kangaroo rat habitat was destroyed. Clearly, using what you are saying, common sense approach, this certainly does not benefit the home owners, but it also defeated the whole objective, which was to protect the rat. So we can clearly, without endangering the animal, we can clearly have more flexibility of the law and get away from the command and control which leaves out common sense.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, but, you know, it is not my first choice and it is not the first choice of the farmers in Georgia. The first choice of the farmers in Georgia are American workers, and the Pombo-Chambliss amendment will not change that a bit. American workers will still get the first crack at these jobs. But, sadly, if you ate fresh fruit or vegetables today at lunchtime, whether you were in New York, Washington, DC, New Jersey, or Georgia, those vegetables probably were picked not by a migrant worker, but probably by an illegal alien. The Pombo-Chambliss amendment responsibly addresses this problem by allowing guest workers to come over here, but, unlike the current broken system, it withholds some of their pay, so that when they return home, then they get the rest of it. This is a responsible choice, but, again, it is a second choice. The first choice of the American farmers is the same choice as the American people, and that is welfare reform. In Glennville, GA, a small town in the First District that I represent, an onion farmer told me recently that he pays $9 an hour for people to pick Vidalia onions, but he cannot get Americans to do the work because they make too much money enjoying the public largesse that we call welfare reform. We have a President who was elected, among other reasons, because he promised to end welfare as we know it. Well, so far he has not submitted a welfare reform bill, and he has vetoed the only one that came across his desk. I believe that the choice of the American farmers is still going to be American workers. Then they want welfare reform. But in the absence of that, support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, because it is our only chance to assure an abundant food supply and having it picked today and on your plate fresh tonight at dinner time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following story for the Congressional Record. This story ran in the Glennville Sentinel on January 11, 1996. Mobley Mourns His Navy Commander (By Clinton Oliver) While flags flew at half-mast in honor of Admiral Arleigh Burke, who died last week at 94 in Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, one Glennville resident was particularly saddened by the passing of this distinguished naval officer. Petty Officer Thurman O. Mobley served with Admiral Burke aboard the U.S.S. Charles Ausburne in the South Pacific during World War II and remembers Burke as a courageous, feisty, and sometimes blustery commander who was highly respected by his men. ``This ship is built to fight,'' Burke once barked to the crew of the Ausburne, ``you'd better know how.'' The U.S.S. Charles Ausburne was built by Consolidated Steel Corporation of Orange, Texas, and was commissioned November 24, 1942. Mobley boarded the Ausburne in Norfolk, Virginia, in April of 1943, and the next month the ship joined the Pacific Fleet, after passing through the Panama Canal, according to Pentagon records. Mobley and his shipmates of the Ausburne were commended by Admiral William ``Bull'' Halsey, Commander of Allied Naval Forces in the South Pacific; by Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and by General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, for action in that theater. They were cited by President Harry S. Truman for action from November 1943 to February 1944. The Ausburne was Admiral Burk's flagship, and although a number of sailors from Georgia served under Burke on other ships, ``I was the only Georgia boy to serve on the same ship with him,'' Mobley declared. The Ausburne destroyed nine enemy ships and shot down nine aircraft. Mobley and the crew rescued ten survivors of planes forced down at sea and picked up 31 Japanese prisoners from the water, according to Navy records. Mobley stated that all crew members had two jobs to perform, depending on whether or not the ship was engaged with the enemy--one ``combat'' job and one ``work-a-day'' routine job.. Petty Officer Mobley was triggerman on a 20 millimeter artillery piece during combat and a baker at other times. The gun crew had trained by firing at aerial targets on a Pacific island, and once just before an air battle with the Japanese, Mobley was summoned to the bridge of the Ausburne. The officer on the bridge had observed that the Glennville sailor consistently had more hits on aerial targets than any other triggerman. ``Mobley,'' the officer demanded, ``we're about to engage the enemy. How do you account for the fact that you have consistently hit more air targets than any triggerman on board?'' Mobley quickly recalled his dove-shooting days with a shotgun near Glennville. ``Sir,'' he retorted, ``I keep telling you fellers you're not leading `em enough.'' Mr. Mobley was referring to the practice of a hunter aiming slightly ahead of a moving quarry to allow time for the projectile to reach the mark. The officer ordered an appropriate adjustment to the aim-and-fire routine and the change improved the accuracy of the entire crew, Mobley said. As the ship's baker, Seaman Mobley learned of Admiral Burke's favorite dessert. ``About once a month, I baked an apple pie and carried it to his quarters,'' he said. After President Eisenhower appointed Admiral Burke Chief of Naval Operations (the top post for a Navy officer), Mobley called his old commander at the Pentagon. ``It took me about half a day to get to him,'' Mobley said, ``but they finally put me through.'' Mobley stated who was calling and congratulated the officer on his high appointment. ``Mobley, Mobley,'' the admiral mused. ``I seem to remember the name, but I can't quite place you.'' ``I used to be your baker,'' Mobley informed him. ``APPLE PIE!'' the admiral exploded. ``You used to bake my apple pies.'' The two old sailors enjoyed a lengthy visit by telephone. Thereafter, Admiral Burke wrote a short note about once a year to his ex-baker, and always addressed him as ``apple pie.'' The periodic messages ceased about two years ago. Age finally claimed Thurman Mobley's cherished and salty old friend. During air battles, Japanese pilots routinely held back the last bomb on their aircraft for a suicide dive into allied war ships, slamming into them at about the waterline. ``We always made sure we shot down those suicide divers,'' Mobley said. ``We knew if we didn't get them, we were goners for sure.'' Sometimes downed suicide craft slammed into the ocean so near the Ausburne and with such force that the crash caused a surge of water across the deck that nearly knocked the sailors off their feet, Mobley declared. At the end of World War II, the U.S.S. Charles Ausburne had steamed a total of 207,000 nautical miles, consumed 10,686,305 gallons of fuel, and visited four continents, and eight ports in the United States. Mobley and his shipmates crossed the International Date Line four times and the equator 16 times. The Ausburne had conducted 32 fueling operations at sea, had gone to General Quarters (complete readiness for battle) 780 times, and had been in three typhoons. Mobley and the Ausburne crew conducted 22 battles against the Japanese Navy in four months. Petty Officer Thurman O. Mobley was discharged from the U.S. Navy on Thanksgiving Day, 1945. He is retired from the U.S. Postal Service and lives with his wife, Lilla, on Howard Street in Glennville.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. In their wallet, right here. I do not know how many American families would benefit from that in Maine or the other States, but I can promise you, in Georgia it would mean a tremendous amount. That is real money. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] said let us get off the chart. That is what we are talking about, a $500 per child tax credit in your wallet today.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is important to follow up that comment, Mr. Speaker, in saying that that interest does not pay down one dime of the principal, that people will still continue to pay all the other taxes involved in it. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], has said that two reasons, real quickly, to balance the budget is it saves America from economic disaster. We are paying almost $20 billion each month in the interest on the debt already. Nations cannot survive with that much debt service. No. 2, the gentleman had said that there is a great interest or dividend in terms of the homeowner. If you have a 30-year home mortgage for a $75,000 house, a 2-percent drop in interest rates, which is what the Federal Reserve would estimate balancing the budget would bring permanently, bringing lower interest rates permanently, that would mean $37,000 less that American homeowners would pay on that mortgage. If it is a $15,000 car loan, American consumers would pay $900 less. One thing that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] did not mention, a third reason you want to balance the budget is because it will lower your taxes. Middle-class America right now has gone from paying about 5 percent Federal income tax in the 1950's to, currently, 24 percent. In all State, local, and Federal taxes, middle income, it is about 45 percent for Americans now. If President Clinton had not vetoed our bill this April, this April, 6 weeks from now, Americans who have children would have $500 in their wallet.

Mr. KINGSTON. One of the things I wanted to point out is that on the chart that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] showed us earlier, there is an urgency. When you have a Federal budget that has been going like this, or excuse me, a deficit, and then it goes like that, people have said particularly to the freshmen, ``You are going too far too fast.'' I disagree. When it is the third largest expenditure in the national budget, the national debt----

Mr. KINGSTON. I am trying to turn this thing around. If you are trying to balance this budget and bring down that orange peak line, what you are trying to do is do it in 7 years. The folks back home, the business people I know say, ``Why can't you do it in 1 year?'' President Clinton as a candidate on June 4, 1992, promised to do it in 4 years. I believe we should be arguing, is 7 years not waiting too long? Should we not try to balance it in 3 or years? Indeed I supported the balance that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] had, which was a 5-year.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, that as an outsider, I am relatively new to Congress, but it looks to me that every time Congress has made a deal in a bipartisan fashion, the tax increase came at the beginning of the deal and the savings or the cuts came later, and then that was the time for a new Congress to come in, and the cuts never happened.