Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. He is always on theme.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one thing that is very important for us to remember, and I believe all four of us here worked for that lockbox provision in an appropriations bill that said when you reduce spending by x amount of dollars, that money goes to deficit reduction, rather than just being unearmarked and open for the general budget to spend any way you want. What is so important about that is the Washington liberals and the administration fought that lockbox provision, and now we have been unable to pass that. It passed out of the House, but we cannot get it out of the Senate because of the Washington liberals fighting it. That is the very thing people in Wisconsin are saying. If you are going to put that $500 directly into deficit reduction, that is one thing, but we know what it is going to do is to feather the bed of another bureaucracy, and another bureaucrat is going to spend it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], in a very impassioned way, said did we come to his district? No; we did not come to his district. We were not invited. This bill has not been given the courtesies of the beet lobbyists' bill, and, furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask rhetorically, did he come to Savannah, GA, to talk to the refiner, the people who work in the refinery that I represent or to the district of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] to talk to the folks in New York, the 450 jobs there that will be eliminated with this status quo, special- interest bill? Let us look at these amendments, Mr. Chairman. One by one, we have a loan rate. The USDA will have a no-net-cost program. They are going to choke domestic supply so that there are no loan defaults. It is going to keep the price of sugar up. That is the situation that we are in under the current bill. This bill does not change the current law at all. We keep hearing about 400,000 jobs. The USDA only sends us 46,000 jobs in this beet industry. We keep hearing that this will eliminate jobs. Well, refiners have gone from 22 plants to 11 plants in the last 10 years. It is not hypothetical about refiners losing jobs. They have already lost jobs. We keep hearing about this is not subsidized. Maybe you could say it is not subsidized. You certainly cannot say it is not a cartel. Mr. Chairman, this is a situation where these poor beet farmers, the wealthiest lobbyists on Capitol Hill, are in the beet, cane sugar industry. Every time I turn around, we see them walking the halls. We can hardly get by in the hall, they are walking in here with pockets full of money. Mr. Chairman, the poor beet farmers that are back home are not going to be put out of business by this bill. Let me tell you why and be very clear to the Members here about this: This bill only gets us to the conference committee so that we can work out a compromise. This is the only train leaving town. If we want to reform sugar, if we want to have a compromise, we must vote on Miller-Schumer-Kingston in order to get it before the conference committee for a compromise.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the previous speaker that the import quota now is 2 million metric tons. This bill lowers it to 1.5 million. He just proved the point why we need Miller-Schumer-Kingston. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker spoke of a delicate compromise? There is no such thing. There has not been a compromise on this bill. The only changes in the program, and it would be misleading for me to use the word reform, because it is not reform; it is changes. And the only changes that have occurred on this bill have been devised by the sugar beet lobbyists. All they have done is basically pushed the peas around on the plate to make mama think they are eating their vegetables. They call fool Members of the Congress, perhaps. They can fool members of their own industry. But they are not fooling the American consumers who will continue to pay $1.4 billion more in the price of sugar than they should have to pay. Sugar is run like a cartel. The producers, the cane and beet producers in this case, have a cozy deal with Congress to keep on overcharging the American consumers. The changes in this bill will not do anything to stop that. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I have been on the Committee on Agriculture. I serve on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. I am proud to be an aggie. I have worked with many Representatives who have commodity programs in their areas, and I have seen many delicate compromises come out that are attached to this farm bill. But, Mr. Chairman, this is not one of them. This was a unilateral power play by the beet and cane producers. It is not reform. Let us not call it reform. At a later time I will go into those changes and why they are not reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I only want to say to my friend from Illinois, if he is speaking, it is on his time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to rebut what my friend from Ohio has just said. Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous. The GAO report has said that 42 percent of the benefits of this program go to 1 percent of the producers. One guy in Florida made $65 million from this program. Then one of the offers that we tried to offer as a compromise was globalization, which would have let American refiners buy sugar on the open market in the world market from whoever they want to, and the beef farmers did not want to have anything to do with it. This is not a competition on an international basis. I just find all that actually the most slightly misinformed argument I have heard against the program.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. You know what is interesting about all these folks who are supporting all the big lobbyists interests is that they keep saying there is over 400,000 jobs related to sugar, yet the USDA says it is only 46,000. So all this talk about jobs is losing me, Mr. Chairman. But what is wrong with working without a refinery? Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago we had 22 refiners in America. Today we have 11. What is it about these people that one job is better than the other? There is room for compromise on this, Mr. Chairman. We need the Miller-Schumer- Kingston amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that folks understand what the gentleman means. I was at a UPS company, United Parcel Service, talking to the truck drivers. The driver said to me, ``I got three kids. I got a good job, and I work long hours. I get paid overtime and make good money. My wife is a schoolteacher. But at the end of each month, we have no money left over because of our tax burden.'' His taxes compared to his father, his father in the 1950's paid 5 percent Federal income tax. Today he is paying 24 percent. That is exactly what you are talking about, that Federal income tax. Once the Federal Government established a toe-hold, or should I say a hook in the American back pocket, they never let go. Each year they have grabbed more and more money out of that gentleman's back pocket. So now he wants to save money for his kids' college education, he wants to save money for a vacation, he wants to save money for his long-term retirement. He cannot. At the end of the month they had zero, because of the tax burden.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. I wanted to just conclude this $500 per child tax credit with this chart right here; the big blue section shows that 89 percent of the people who will benefit from $500 per child tax credit have a combined family income of $75,000 or less. Now, the red line is in the category of $75,000 to $100,000. That is 7 percent. Above $100,000, it is 4 percent. So, you know, if we want to do something to help middle America, if we want to do something to help America's middle class, this is the ticket to go, and not an increase in the minimum wage. This is real dollars. This will help them in their pocket.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me just say this, in the 1992 presidential primary, candidate Bill Clinton had an ad that said this: ``Hi, I am Bill Clinton. I believe you deserve a change. That is why I have a plan to stimulate the economy, starting with a middle-class tax cut.'' Now, we all know, after running on a promise of a middle-class tax cut, the President turned around and in 1993 passed the largest tax increase in the history of our country. But it is ironic, the other day he said, ``I was raised in an old-fashioned home, in an old fashioned time, maybe, but I still think when you tell somebody you are going to do something, you ought to do everything you can to do it.'' That was President Bill Clinton at a press conference, January 5, just over 2 months ago, 1996. All we are saying is, great we are glad, let us use those old- fashioned hometown values that we all love in America, both Democrats and Republicans think highly of. Let us go ahead and give middle-class America the tax cut that he promised and that we want to give him.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, is it not true that on a 2\1/2\ interest rate reduction for a $75,000 home over a 30-year period of time, the American consumers, the American homeowners, would save $37,000?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Right now. Seniors who decide to keep working are penalized $1 on their Social Security for every $3 they earn in the workplace. What a ridiculous Tax Code that we have. Let me speak about another thing. You mentioned the family, the different phases of life. As I listen to this, we know already that 77 percent of the people who will benefit from tax relief have a combined family income of $75,000 or less. And yet we are making it also clear that it helps young people, helps seniors, and it helps middle-income, it helps families with children. Getting back to my UPS truck driver with three kids, under my proposal he will get a $1,500 tax credit, $500 for each kid. That is $1,500 in his pocket. Now let us say, on the other hand, we say do not do that; let us increase minimum wage 50 cents. We increase minimum wage 50 cents, which might come out to $1,000 more a year in income. It is not a net income figure, because he still pays taxes on that. So it comes to about $600. If you give the American worker a choice between increasing the minimum wage and a $500 per child tax credit, $500 per child tax credit, it puts more money in the pocket of the American worker, and that is why I am baffled by anyone in this Chamber who would vote against that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Do not call Thomas Jefferson a Democrat. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I want to make it abundantly clear to anybody who heard you say, Thomas Jefferson was not a Democrat. He was a Democrat Republican, and the party that he stood for has no reflection to today's Democrat party. Do not insult Thomas Jefferson. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to continue this discussion on taxes and talk about another tax that has been proposed to be alleviated by the Republican tax relief plan. That is the marriage tax penalty. If a young couple today gets married, they pay more taxes together married than they would if they lived with each other. I will walk through an example. If you have a young woman who is making $20,000 and a young man who is making $20,000 a year, roughly they each pay about $4,000 in taxes. So their combined income, their combined tax liability, is $8,000. That is living together. They put on one of these little wedding bands here and get their relationship blessed by the Lord, and then that tax burden comes at a rate based on not $20,000 in income but $40,000 in income, and their total tax liability jumps from $8,000 to about $12,000 because they are now in a higher tax bracket. Mr. Speaker, what sense is behind that? What is wrong with trying to correct that? It not only applies to young people, but senior citizens. Here we are, we have a society that is condoning such an absurd, ridiculous tax policy. If society believes in the institution of marriage, then we need to address the marriage tax penalty, which is exactly what the Republican Party in their tax relief plan has done. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I will not speak to the details of this bill. We have been batting it around enough. I do want to speak to the spirit of the bill and the compromise that went into it. We all knew when we went into this bill that Washington, DC was in financial trouble. We all knew that Washington, DC had to change. We all knew that the estimates that we had for revenues and taxes and savings based on past legislation never came through quite the way we guessed they would. We knew it would be difficult. Yet, somehow through this process, we have a bill together. Now it appears that folks on one side of the aisle do not like it because it is too conservative and folks on the other side of the aisle do not like it because it is too liberal. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives $1.4 billion as a budget for the District. That is a lot of money for a city of 554,000 people, which is about 50,000 lower than it had 10 years ago. Because of the many problems they have had, people have moved out of it. This bill reduces their spending about $150 million. We know on the committee we actually passed a bill at one time that had $260 million in savings, but we were unable to get that through the Senate and we were unable to move it through the floor. In anticipation of being unable to move it through the floor, we have changed that amount of money. We have the Financial Control Board. It is something that I think is going to take many, many years to change the city around, but I have here a list of folks who are going to vote ``no'' because the spending level is too high and the changes do not go far enough. Yet, as I hear from this side of the aisle, you have a list of people who are going to vote ``no'' because the cuts are too much. Mr. Speaker, I think in order to keep this process going, in order to not go through the continuing resolution route, this bill represents the best compromise. We will never have a perfect Washington, DC bill. It is never going to be the way the liberals would write it, it is never going to be the way the conservatives would write it, but this is our best shot for a reasonable bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes.''

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I enter the attached resolution, H.R. 791, from the House of Representatives of the State of Georgia, into the Congressional Record: H.R. No. 791 By: Representatives Bunn of the 74th, Heckstall of the 55th, Hembree of the 98th, Mueller of the 152nd, Brown of the 130th and others a resolution Expressing support for the American troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina urging President Clinton and the Congress to give the troops sufficient resources to ensure their well-being; and for other purposes. Whereas, President Clinton has dispatched American troops to assist in supervising the fragile peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Whereas, those American men and women along with their NATO counterparts are experiencing severe hardship and facing real personal danger in order to protect the former combatants and their respective civilian populations in that tragic region; and Whereas, those brave men and women deserve not only our moral support but also the real material support necessary to ensure their safety in a hostile environment. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, That the members of this body express their confidence that the American troops deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina will acquit themselves professionally and honorably, pledge their unreserved support for the American troops, and pray that their mission will bring a return of peace and prosperity to the citizens of the region. Be it further resolved, That the members of this body urge the President and Congress to provide the United States contingent with the resources and support necessary to ensure the success of their mission and their early safe return home. Be it further resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit appropriate copies of this resolution to President Clinton, the presiding officers of the House of Representatives and Senate, the majority leader of the Senate, and the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I enter the following story into the Congressional Record. This story was written by Nancy Welch. It was printed in the Statesboro Herald on December 10, 1995: The President Speaks (By Nancy Welch) President Clinton stood on a podium draped with army camouflage. Soldiers stood in formation on the parade field in front of him. Their families dotted the surrounding hills. It was gray and foggy. He tried to cheer them. He told the soldiers they would soon be leaving for Bosnia, not to worry, they would be back in a year or so. I shivered, aware of that damp cold that so often enshrouds the small village of Baumholder, Germany. I could almost feel the snow stinging my face and my feet turning icy cold. But the real chill hit my heart. I remember too well the time I spent in Baumholder. On top of a mountain. Caring for babies. Doing laundry. Washing dishes. Being frightened. The cold war still raged. The enemy sat just across the East German border. And our husbands were constantly put on alert. The days of fear would begin before dawn. An MP car with a loudspeaker would cruise the streets of the military housing areas. ``This is an alert. Report to your units,'' would be the deafening words from the speaker. We would be jolted awake. All over the area men would rise from their beds, jump into their uniforms, grab their gear, kiss the wife and kids and leave. We never knew at that early hour whether they would be gone an hour, a day, a month or a year. We wouldn't find out until later in the day whether the early morning call to arms was a practice or for real. As the snow fell on the foggy mountain, we wives turned to each other for any news a husband might smuggle through. We drank hot tea and offered moral support. We continued to take care of the children, do laundry, cook, wash dishes and fight the cold fear that nagged at the pits of our stomachs. Sometimes there was good news. Just as the early dark of winter fell, the call would come. He would be home for dinner. But other times it would be weeks before the men would come home. It was awful. But the wives of the soldiers in Bosnia today are faced with a greater challenge. They face at least a year, without their husbands, on the cold, snowy, foggy mountain in a country far away. And they face the long separation just before Christmas. My heart goes out to them. They will deal with so much. They will have to tangle with the Santa Claus wishes, do the tree, go to the school programs and church programs. They will have to put on a happy, hopeful face for the children. They will have a strong support system. Military families do take care of their own. Christmas day they will gather in groups. The children will play happily under the tree while the women drink a glass of German wine and enjoy their turkey and dressing. But there will be a lump in every wife's throat. There's nothing easy about what the soldiers are about to do. But, believe me, there is nothing easy about what those strong women are about to face. Think of them during this holiday season.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] and the other gentleman from Michigan. I wanted to say that it is interesting that just this morning I was speaking to a senatorial candidate from Georgia, and he said he started politics in 1974. In 1974 the big issue, when he was running for the State legislature, was let us balance the budget, we cannot have these deficits going on and on forever. He said, finally, after all these years, 17, 18 years later, we finally have a Congress who is doing something about the budget. When I hear a lot of the folks back home who are bureaucracy brokers and status quo preservers saying, Oh, you can't do this, you can't do that, nobody said it was going to be easy to balance the budget. Nobody said that you could just do it overnight. We did not get in this situation overnight, and we will not get out of it overnight. I always think it is kind of like dismantling an old white-elephant kind of house, one board at a time and maybe 1 year at a time. Perhaps we underestimated how quickly we could turn this government around. But we got used to borrowing money. Back in the days of Lyndon Johnson, we got used to borrowing money. It got so bad that by 1969, we said good- bye to our last balanced budget, and since then we have just been comfortable year after year of borrowing money. While that would terrify our constituents back home, our moms and dads running households, to us it is not as terrifying because we have always been able to print more money. But I am glad that this Congress is taking a critical, crucial step. I wanted to just support what the gentleman from Michigan was saying in that regard.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in Richmond Hill, GA, there was not much room to stand in the multipurpose room of the Richmond Hill Primary School as hundreds gathered to honor the woman that has had the most impact on this growing coastal community just south of Savannah. Frances Meeks has taught and served as a school administrator to thousands in this bustling community, and their admiration showed in the huge turnout and many gifts that were presented in her honor during a retirement ceremony this past November. At the ceremony honored guests, colleagues, and friends spoke about the many special memories they had of her. Appropriately, Meeks was presented with a portrait of Anne of Green Gables, whom a Canadian educator made famous in a series of novels. She was also presented with a U.S. flag flown at the Capitol and a letter of congratulations from U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA). Among other items that she received were: A scrapbook with newspaper clippings, a State flag and a proclamation from the Georgia Legislature, and a special gift from the teachers and staff of Richmond Hill Primary School. Media specialist Bob Fennel presented Meeks with a plaque rededicating the library at the school in her name. Also a scholarship was announced by the Bryan Bank and Trust in her name that will benefit aspiring teachers. A 1953 graduate of the University of Georgia with a degree in home economics, she began her teaching career in Richmond Hill as a home economics instructor in 1954. She was certified in elementary education at Georgia Southern College in 1956. By 1975, and several teaching positions later, Meeks received her masters in elementary education from nearby Armstrong State College in Savannah. Throughout her life, Meeks has taught at different grade levels at several schools. It was not until 1976 that she shifted gears and began serving at the administration level. Since that time, she served as assistant principal for 5 years and principal for 14. All of those who have worked with Meeks share an equal admiration for her innovative approach to working with children. She was always open to new ideas and had an open door policy with her colleagues. Among the groups that Meeks is, or was, a part of are: PAGE [Professional Association of Georgia Educators], Delta Kappa Gamma Society International, Epsilon Sigma Alpha International, PTSO, SACS Initial Accreditation Team and the Georgia Association of Elementary Schools. She has served as a Sunday school teacher, organized the Richmond Hill Garden Club, organized the annual Richmond Hill Fourth of July celebration and organized the Richmond Hill unit of the American Heart Association. It is difficult to sum up the impact that Meeks has had on this growing southeast Georgia community, but not too many people can claim such a gala event at their retirement ceremony. The many items presented to Meeks reflect the deep rooted feelings of those whom she has touched throughout her life. She will most definitely be missed in the education field of Georgia. She will now be able to spend some quality time with her grandchildren and enjoy the good life. Assuming the role as principal of the Richmond Hill Primary School will be Dahlia Davis. She will no doubt have some tough shoes to fill.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last night the President's speech was somewhat like the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated; thrilling, exciting, but full of dreams and fantasy. It was a golden oldies collection of Bill Clinton's greatest hits, lines, and slogans from 1992. Welfare reform, a middle-class tax cut, and, of course, balancing the budget. In fact, I thought he was running in the New Hampshire primary, but facts deal harshly with fiction. The rhetoric of the candidate has dissolved into the reality of a President. We sent him welfare reform; he vetoed it. We sent him a middle-class tax cut; he vetoed it. We sent him a balanced budget, and he vetoed that. The hot air from last night's speech explained why even 3 feet of snow quickly melts in Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President: Mr. President, put your pen where your mouth is. Sign some of the legislation that you talked about last night, and then let us get this country moving again.