Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Obviously they would say, wait a minute, mom and dad. You mean to say all of that stuff that you are charging, I have to pay for? Maybe we do not need all of those Federal spending programs after all. Maybe all those bureaucrats in Washington should go home.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. You, sir, have been in office 12 months now. You have a balanced budget. Your freshman class has supported a balanced budget. The President has had a 2-year jump, actually a 3-year jump on you. Remember, on June 4, 1992, he said on ``Larry King Live,'' he would have a balanced budget in 4 years. He has been in office 3 years. You have been in office in your freshman class 1 year. Are you saying to me that the President has yet to submit a balanced budget?

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask you this, because the Democrats keep talking about, of course, they want a balanced budget. Surely they have submitted a balanced budget; is that right?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think that it is important that we do emphasize to the degree that people outside of Washington understand we are not even cutting the budget. You look at the overall spending; we are not even freezing it. The Republican Party is arguing about increasing the growth $3 trillion over the next 7 years, and President Clinton wants to have it increase $4 trillion over the next 7 years, so what we are arguing is 3 versus 4 trillion new dollars in spending, and, as you have pointed out, while the President will say that we are devastating, and decimating, and dissecting, and all kinds of bad things Medicare, he--we are still increasing it 42 percent, and it is interesting also that on that same subject that Haley Barbour, the President of the Republican National Committee, has said that, if any Democrat House Member, Democrat Party member, American citizen, or even Republican can show where we are cutting Medicare, well, then come pick up a million- dollar check, and what was so ironic is I listened for months, and months, and months to the folks on this side of the aisle saying, ``You're cutting, you're cutting, you're cutting.'' Well, here is your chance, come get a million dollars. I do not think any of them are going to make that much in the U.S. Congress, not legally anyhow, but you can imagine. We should have had a line of people coming in saying, ``I want my million dollars. You all are cutting that budget.'' But nobody has stepped forward with it. Now just think about it. If you were a Democrat Party member, and you have been saying all along, ``Republicans are cutting, and cutting, and cutting,'' what a hero you would be to your side if you could pick up that million dollars. The motivation would just be incredible to do it, and yet that offer is what? Ten days old now? Have not heard, still out there, silence. You know my little boy plays on a soccer team, and it is ironic, as I go out to the soccer fields, and I look at these kids, and I realize that we have an opportunity to do something for them: more jobs because interest rates will come down, lower home mortgages, more student loans at lower interest rates. We are increasing student loans, as you know, and we have got this great opportunity for these children, to do something for them now. And I was thinking, you know, now what would happen if kids could vote, if kids could vote on all the spending programs that President Clinton and the administration are saying are for children, for children, for children; what if they could vote and say, ``Hey, wait a minute, wait a minute, Mr. President, I don't want to be stuck with the tab that you have run up to us, that each boy and girl born today owes $187,000 in interest as his or her share of the national debt on top of local, Federal, and State taxes.'' I have a nephew, Morris Watson. He is going to owe $187,000 in interest on the debt. This is real stuff. Let me get back to the soccer field, and I want to yield back, do not want to grab the mike too long, but ironically the name of my son's soccer team is Budget, and I was thinking, you know, you do get spoken to in different ways and different omens are out there, and I was thinking while I am away from them during this Christmas week, as we all are, you know, maybe there is something that is worth fighting for out there because, if those boys and girls on that soccer team can live in a world where there is a balanced budget and a government that is honest, then maybe this is and certainly this is worth what we are trying to do.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield a second, I want to, you know, remind folks that I really and truly think that if a lot of people knew that we are not really talking about cutting the budget, they would be furious, you know, these right-wing freshmen that we keep hearing about. If they knew, hey, you are going to increase the budget $3 trillion, they and the sophomore class that I know, we would be out of a job. The people would be disgusted with that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if you would take out members of the media in this 45 percent, it would fall down to 25 percent. One thing that has been quite clear this whole time, it is that whenever you read the poll numbers, the poll numbers shows the media loves President Clinton far more than they want to give Speaker Gingrich or Leader Dole a fair shake, so I think that is one of the realities. When people back home say to me, ``Do not cave,'' their second comment is, ``Doesn't the media make you sick? You cannot believe anything you hear on national networks.'' They have shot their own credibility in the foot. I do not know that they realize that they are not--they are listened to, but they are not believed at all.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this is the national debt. I think we need to bring a little sobriety to this debate here today. $4,988,313,115,981.39. As Members can see, Mr. Speaker, this debt is too big for the camera. This debt is too big for a convenient pocket- size chart. This debt, most importantly, is too big to pass on to our children. What it means to them is that in their lifetime they will have less income, they will pay higher interest rates, they will have a lower quality of life and less opportunities; but if we in the next week do the right thing and balance the budget, then in 7 years we can start paying down this horrendous number so our children can enjoy the great America that you and I believe in and work for. We did not get into this mess because of Democrats or Republicans. We have to get out of it because of both parties working together.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, balancing the budget is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is not about partisan victory. It is not about a victory of one group over another group. It is about setting priorities. It is saying that we care more about the future and worry about our children's future than just getting reelected. Balancing the budget is not just about economics, and it is not just about accounting. It is about the fact that we live in a great country, we live in the greatest country the world has ever seen, and yet we can live in an even greater one if we live within our means. There are a lot of economic reasons to balance the budget, but what would it mean to the person back home? Mr. Speaker, experts have said, including Alan Greenspan, that living within our means under a balanced budget could mean a drop in the interest rates, perhaps as much as 2 percent, and, if the interest rates drop 2 percent, the average homeowner could have a lower mortgage. If a family has a 30-year mortgage on a $75,000 house, then over the lifetime of the loan that family will save and pocket $37,000. That is why we need to balance the budget, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Democrats and Republicans will all step forward, put partisanship aside, and do the right thing.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I anticipate a number of Democrat retirements because of Haley Barbour's offer. The offer, as Members of the House know, is for $1 million for any member of the public, including Members of the Democrat Party, who can prove that Republicans, in fact, do cut Medicare. What is so interesting about this, Mr. Speaker, is that just about every Democrat we have heard this year says Republicans are going to cut Medicare. Since they have an outside income limitation, they will all have to retire to get their $1 million check. I do not think that is what Mr. Barbour intended, but it could be a very nice consequence of this generous offer. I am confident that Democrat Members will be just flocking over to the NRCC today to meet with Mr. Barbour and collect their $1 million, because time after time from this well right here, Mr. Speaker they have told the American people, including their own mothers and fathers, that Republicans are cutting Medicare. Well, now it is time to put their money where their mouth is and go get their $1 million, Democrats. In case they cannot get it, we will continue to try to get them to help us on Medicare reform, because we need to preserve and protect it, instead of demagoguing it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said that nothing that ever starts in the Balkans ever ends there. I think that when we think about making peace with tanks, bullets, guns, rifles, and missiles, we are not fooling ourselves. We are not going over there to make peace. We are going to go in there and prolong and probably start a bigger conflict than has been going on there already for over 100 years. So, I proudly support the Dornan amendment and will say this: If anybody thinks there is a Member of Congress who cares about our men and women in armed services more than the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], they are only fooling themselves.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions that have been going on about the budget. Will we have a balanced budget? Will the Democrats go with the Congressional Budget Office numbers? When will the budget be balanced? Will the President, in fact, offer a balanced budget? Will it happen this year? Will it happen before Christmas? In fact, Mr. Speaker, there has been so much confusion about the budget that I told the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to go down to the CIA and get one of the palm readers down there to give him a prediction. One thing we know, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not need a crystal ball to read this agreement right here that happened between the Republicans and the Democrats. It says, both sides, including and especially the President, are committed to a 7-year balanced budget. ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.'' Not one person voted against this. This is what the discussion is all about, Mr. Speaker. Let us keep our commitments and follow this agreement.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the things that is very important to remember is that the AmeriCorps Program, which the gentlewoman has been discussing, for example, is $26,000 per child. Well, I would say to my colleague, we can produce a heck of a lot of great opportunities for kids at that rate. The problem, as the gentlewoman knows, is that if we want to do something for kids, we have to reduce the deficit. We cannot pass them our bankrupt legacy, the $200 billion debt that we have year after year, the $4.9 trillion that is eating away at these things. Now, the gentlewoman and I know that when we were kids, an old trick used to be to go to the corner drugstore and charge a Coca Cola or an ice cream to your dad's account down there. Well, at the end of the month your father would find out, well, you charged something to me, and I am going to make you pay that back. Well, now what is happening is we parents are going down and we are charging things for our kids to pay, but these are 4- and 5- and 6- year-old children who for years and years are going to be paying.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is important, but out of 163 job training programs I would challenge the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to say, let us cut these. We are in agreement that maybe we need 100 job training programs, or maybe we need 2, or maybe we need 50. Where I think the Democrat Party is being somewhat disingenuous is you all are saying, let us cut the budget and let us balance it, but not here, not now, not in my area. These are good programs. I would say to my colleague that, in each case, many of them are good programs, yet we are still in debt. So why do we not try to take the good ones that are good and consolidate them together and reduce it and, most importantly, cut out the Washington bureaucrats who are the middle people who are sucking up so much of the money that should go? I want to make one more point. Mr. Speaker, it is already November, almost December. We keep hearing, balance the budget, but not here, not now. We want to work in a bipartisan fashion. To my knowledge, the only serious plan that has come from you all has been on the Blue Tick Hounds or the Hound Dog Democrats or whatever you call them, and I know that the gentleman from Mississippi has been a part of that. That is a great counterpunch to the debate, and I applaud it. But it is still a minority group within the Democrat Party. We do not have a serious Democrat proposal to balance the budget yet. So as long as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to say, not here, not now; I would say, get in the arena with us. I mean, it is difficult to balance the budget. If it was not, we would have had one in the last 25 years. Let me yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. If we can get more time, I will continue this debate, because the lady from Texas has been a very positive person in this debate process.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House today on the budget and on the process of balancing the budget. I have listened to a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today and in the weeks past on the budget, and I really think that maybe an honest step would be for them to say that we do not want to balance the budget, just get it over with. Because what we are hearing is, well, not here and not there, and do not do this, and do not do that. Federal jobs programs, for example. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have 163 different Federal jobs training programs. Is it possible that some of those could be trimmed back, some could be consolidated, and perhaps, oh, do not say it too loudly around Washington, but maybe some could be eliminated? Is that not what the American people actually want?

Mr. KINGSTON. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If we are making by a ruler that is the same ruler that we measure all plans on and that is the case, then we need to look at it.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. I would say this to my friend from Hawaii whom I know to be a learned and honest gentleman. This is an 18-inch ruler, and what is unbelievable to me that over here 18 inches may be different, if we were talking money on the other side of the aisle, and I agree with what you and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] and the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] are saying, let us use the same ruler when we debate this so that balance really is balance. No deficit really means no deficit. So I would say to you in the spirit of let us get to the bottom of it, I am with you 100 percent on what your assertion is. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this. Last night was the first night that I listened to what you are saying and it raised something that I want to go back and do my homework on. But I can assure you that I would be happy to answer that question afterwards and continue a dialog in an honest manner.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in keeping with going back and forth between Democrat and Republican, is it not true that a Democrat can ask for unanimous consent for 5 minutes to speak out of order and then the gentleman from Mississippi can get 5 minutes if no one objects?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman a question. I am on the Committee on Appropriations. You guys are the budgeteers. I want to ask you something many constituents ask me, and that is you look at the Bush tax deal in 1990, look at Gramm-Rudman, you look at all these grand crescendos we had in Washington followed by a lot of bipartisan hugging and kissing, backslapping, are we not great? Then we wait. The budget is never balanced. Is this going to be the case? Why 7 years? Those of us who are here in this Chamber tonight, we may not be elected in 7 years. Now we may cut the budget and start it. What is going to make sure that in the year 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will just say real quickly something that is very appropriate to the subject that the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is going to address, which is the budget, and that is that in Washington, a decrease in the anticipated increase is considered a cut, which means if you are wanting to spend $15,000 and you only spend $10,000 more than you did last year, then that is a $5,000 cut instead of a $10,000 increase. Therefore, so much of the debate I think is tainted by the fact that we use what are normal, every day, commonplace words, but we change them into an illegitimate-type usage so that the word ``cut'' again is a decrease in the anticipated increase. Again, Mr. Speaker, I will say in that context we are increasing Medicare benefits per recipient from about $4,800 to $6,700 over a 7- year period of time, and we are doing that by giving seniors more options than normal Medicare. We are going to opt to have Medicare Plus, we are going to have managed care options, health maintenance organizations options; we will have medical savings account options and physician service network options, preferred provider organizations, all kinds of things which I think are very exciting. I have discussed these options with my parents and other senior citizens that I know, and they are excited about it and they are glad that we are going to move to protect and preserve Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I now need to yield back to the gentleman from Connecticut his time, and maybe we can have a good discussion on the budget.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield a second, putting Congress under the same laws as the American people, the Shays Act, from the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, having just returned from a series of meetings in Georgia and meeting with a number of constituents during the work recess period, there are three predominant things that people have on their minds back home, and I think this is probably true all over America, and that is Bosnia, Medicare, and the budget. I would like to speak very briefly on Bosnia, because we are now in a new phase where the President, our Commander in Chief, has officially decided to embark in a new phase of the debate by sending and committing to send 20,000 of our troops over there. We all want to support troops who are anywhere fighting in the world at the order of the Commander in Chief, and yet certainly in Bosnia we have a lot of questions. The questions that we had debated 2 weeks ago when we had a very critical vote on Bosnia, which in that vote Congress decided against sending troops over there, and our questions were at the time: What is our peril? What is the timetable that we will be there? What is the plan? Who are our allies? How long will we be there? How will we get out of being there? And what is the exact mission? These questions need to be answered. I think within the next couple of weeks the President will be answering these through his staff members to Congress. Senate hearings, I believe, began today, Mr. Speaker. So I think it is appropriate that we look at this and continue this debate. Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] said, clearly the people of America at this point are not in support of sending troops to Bosnia; and I think, because of that, we need to define what the American peril is, and I have yet to hear what that peril is. It is very important for us to know before we send our sons and daughters over there. Mr. Speaker, I was in Italy in August and had the opportunity to be briefed by NATO on the Bosnian situation. In August, when one talked about Bosnia, it was years and years away in terms of everything that has happened; and yet, in that discussion, one of the things that struck me was who are our allies. It is not just Bosnians and Croatians and Serbians. There are all kinds of subgroups and countergroups and local warloads and so forth. I know often when we try to take humanitarian supplies into one section another group down the road or up the road from them would block the supply trucks, even though they all had the same label as being Bosnians. Yet they were different, because they were from a different territory. So one of my main questions is going to be that I hope to find out in the next couple of weeks who will our allies be. Then a question that has come up more and more lately as we debate balancing the budget is what is this going to cost us? Will we really be able to get out of there in a year or is it going to be like so many other peaces that we have won worldwide? The peace that we got in Somalia, the peace that we got in Haiti, the peace that we got anywhere is really purchased peace. It is a matter of the United States of America pulling out the checkbook and buying off the warring factions. I would like to know what those costs are. I know our taxpayers back home would like to know also. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have debates and we are going to have hearings, and this is a good process. The War Powers Act has been debated since the inception of our great democracy, and yet the Congress and the President still view these things differently. Again, we do want to support the troops individually. It looks like at this point they are going to go over there, yet at the same time we have congressional duties of our own and we will begin immediately in due diligence to answer some of the questions that we have been asking on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, on Medicare let me just say this. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who is the budget expert, is down here. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] was able to come to Savannah this weekend and found the time to meet with a lot of our hospitals and nursing homes and home health care professionals and other health care providers, and we talked about the fact that in April the Medicare trustees said Medicare is going to run out of money in 2 years, it will be bankrupt in 6 years; it is the obligation and duty of the Congress to act to preserve and protect Medicare, which we have been doing. We are trying to slow down the inflation rate of Medicare, the growth of it. It is right now at about 11 percent; regular medical inflation is more in the 4 to 6 percent range. We believe if we can get Medicare costs in that 4 to 6 percent range, we can save it. Yet at the same time, we are committed to increased spending per recipient from $4,800 to $6,700. As I said that to the people back home, they said, well, that is not a cut. We said, well, yes, it is true. We are going from about $178 billion to $278 billion. Mr. Speaker, let me yield back the balance of my time, and maybe the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] would yield a few minutes to me to complete that thought.