Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to ask about this because if the President is not reelected, that would mean that the budget that he is proposing will actually not be balanced until 9 years after he leaves office. Is that correct?

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, my father is a college professor, Ph.D. My sister is a college professor. My mama has a master's degree; my other sister does, too. I come from an academic background and strongly believe in the academic freedom. I think it is very important for universities and professors and faculty to be idealistic. Yet at the same time, when they come to Congress or to any other source asking for a resource or money, then they have to yield some of that freedom away. All we are saying is, ``We are not going to micromanage you. Go ahead and kick ROTC off the campus, but don't come to the same Department of Defense and ask for a grant if you are not going to let ROTC on the campus. You can have your academic freedom, but what you cannot do is have it both ways.'' I think in that context we are not micromanaging Harvard or Brown or Stanford or Yale or any of these other offending universities.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, a constituent of mine, Paul Anderson, sent me an April 28 article from Human Events magazine about a young man at Yale University named Flagg Youngblood. Flagg Youngblood is a hardworking student. In addition to taking a full academic load, he is taking ROTC. However, at Yale in order to take ROTC he has to travel 65 miles twice a week during his junior and senior year to get to an ROTC room, because Yale University will not let them teach it on campus. Although if he wants to take a course called ``The Story of Incest,'' he can take that on campus. While Yale is making that judgment, they are greedily taking on the other hand a $5 million contract from the U.S. Army. We are not micromanaging Yale University. If they want to have ``The Story of Incest'' as one of their main academic majors, let them, but do not come back to us with the other hand, while you are kicking Flagg Youngblood and the other young men and women who want to join ROTC off campus, and then take a $5 million grant. I urge an ``aye'' vote for the Pombo amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things that I find, and I am sure you do in Arizona when you go home, is that people are saying, stay the course, cut the budget, and I am sick and tired of it. Get the Government out of my life. Reduce the regulations, reduce my taxes, make it work and stay out of Washington as much as possible. With that in mind, what has happened here, suddenly somebody over at the administration has figured, wait, they did not tick off people when they actually carried through with their campaign promise of balancing the budget. Let us get in on this bandwagon. So now they are going to join the fray. But to do something a little differently, they have to say, let us do it in 10 years. If you look back at the Grace commission, the Gramm-Rudman, the balanced budget amendment, every time we do something, it is always far off, it is not this year, not this budget. We did pass a budget that puts us having a balanced budget in 7 years, but even that is a long time. And I think what the American people want is yesterday, not 10 years. And they are not even real happy with 7.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, does the gentleman think that maybe since the marriage of James Carville and Mary Matalin there will be cross winds going on at the White House weather vane?

Mr. KINGSTON. However, if the President of the United States is serious and wants to balance the budget, as we can only hope that he is, the Republican Party welcomes him and his administration, open arms, let us get in the arena, let us figure it out together and let us work for the good of America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I think maybe the President's idea was to put them all in the national service league so they could get paid for volunteer work. When they are 14, they do not need the money anymore. It was typical of this administration to come up with a complicated middle- class tax relief plan. It looked a little bit to me like Mrs. Clinton's health care revision last year, just a chart of dots and arrows and boxes and squares going this way and all over the page and that is their idea, I guess, of simplification and so forth. That is, I think, why the American people are getting a little leery of it. My 2-year-old, actually 3-year-old, sings a song, did you ever see a laddie go this way and that way and this way and that way. That is what we have got going on. We all know that. One day you are for tax cuts; the next day you are against them. One day you cannot balance the budget; the next day you can.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on the comments of the gentleman from Michigan about the President making a speech tonight concerning balancing the budget. I, too, welcome the President in this discussion. We have had a game, I guess since January, of where is Bill, and I am glad to see that he has emerged. I regret that it is after the House has passed its balanced budget. I regret that it is after the Senate has passed its balanced budget. But there is still time, and this is going to be many, many years and a very long process. So I am glad to see he has decided to go ahead and jump in the game at this point. But I am concerned that now, after fighting against a middle-class tax cut, he has come out for one. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] on this matter because that is what I understand that he did notice; is that correct?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, back at the White House, the weather vane has shifted again. After months of silence, inaction and a game of where is Bill, the President has decided to enter the balanced budget debate. I ask, ``Well, isn't that a risky thing to do? The House has already passed its balanced budget, the Senate has already passed its balanced budget. Why not go ahead and place a bet on the Houston versus Orlando game while you're at it, Mr. President?'' But, as my colleagues know, it is going to be typical, a 5-minute speech to balance the budget, no words, no chart, no math, no particular plans, just words, words from this administration. Well, that is reassuring. But I welcome his reemergence. We need to have a debate, and, even if it is after the fact, let us get on with it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, featuring interactive dialog with John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, ``Forrest Gump'' proved that to star in a movie, one not only does not have to be an actor, but through modern technology, you do not have to be alive anymore, either. Yesterday, by vetoing the $16 billion tax savings bill, the Clinton administration proved a similar phenomenon: That is, even a dead presidency can continue to enhance its reputation as a big spending friend of bureaucracy long after its political life has expired. That is right. Without asking anybody, Mr. President just went ahead and vetoed. For a short while, he will be the hero of the big spenders in Washington and the bureaucracy, but the American people will demand: If not these cuts, which cuts; if not this rescission, which rescission; if not these programs, which programs? If you want relevancy, Mr. President, join the debate. Show us where you want to save the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, during the 10 days that we were home for the break, the many constituents that I met with had concerns on a lot of different subjects, budget matters, they are very concerned about us balancing the budget. I said many, many times over the last 10 days that the third largest expenditure of our national budget is interest on the debt. And in 2 years that interest on the debt will exceed all military spending, all of the expenditures for the Coast Guard, the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force and so forth. We will pay more money, more interest money to the bond holders on the national debt than we will for all of the armed services. I think this is absolutely atrocious, and found that most constituents agree. They want us, they are screaming for us to balance this budget. They realize that there will be some reductions in spending, some reductions in projections, and some elimination in consolidations of various programs, and yet what the folks of the First District of Georgia are saying is if you are going to balance the budget and you are going to do it across the board, that is fine. Do not do it on the backs of the veterans, do not do it on the backs of elderly, do not do it on the backs of children, do it across the board. When I explain to them the Kasich budget proposal, in most cases people said that is a balanced approach, that is the way to handle this tremendous problem, because as we look at spending over a trillion dollars more than the current budget allocation in the next 7 years, people understand that in many cases we are not talking about budget cuts but we are talking about reducing the projected increase. And yet people want that budget balanced. They are also interested in this tax relief. It is a shame that the United States other body on the other side of the hall has not quite caught on the American people are sick and tired of paying taxes. The average middle-class family paid a 2 percent tax burden in the 1950's as a percentage of Federal income tax. In the 1970's, that 2 percent went to 16 percent. In the 1990's, it is 24 percent. The middle-class families of America today are paying 40 to 50 percent of their income in taxes, and they are sick and tired of it. they cannot afford it. And most families, both spouses are working simply because of the economic necessity of paying taxes. It does not get them ahead, it just keeps them standing still and breaking even. The middle class needs relief. The tax relief bill passed by the House actually benefitted 75 percent of the American people in the middle-class category. We have got to help the middle class, and our package does that. But more importantly than that, giving the people their own money back, not confiscating it from them in the first place, allows them to buy more hamburgers, more CD players, more cars, more houses. When they do that, businesses expand. They create jobs. New workers create new revenue. History shows, and I went back to 1956, the Treasury Department numbers, and looked at it. Our revenues have increased every time taxes were low; the revenues to the national budget actually increased. And what is so important about that is that our projection is that if the economy grows over 1 percent more than the current projection, then in the next 7 years we will have another $640 billion of revenue added to the current budget, and if that is the case, it will be a lot easier to balance the budget without further reductions and caps and so forth. Although many people are saying, ``Do not worry about those cuts,'' because one of the major objectives we want out of the 104th Congress is to reduce the size of government. People are tired of government micromanagement. They are tired of Washington bureaucrats telling them how to run the show. They are saying, ``We can handle our problems just fine on a local basis. Let our local nonprofits or our for-profits handle it. Let our local city councils and county commissions handle it. Let State governments do it. Take things, particularly major decisionmaking, out of Washington.'' Another thing I found that the folks in the First District of Georgia are very concerned about is welfare reform. Simply put, they just do not want people who are able to work paid for not working. The middle- class families are out there working 40, 50, 60 hours a week, breaking their back. They are tired of doing it for the benefit of a huge Washington bureaucracy and able-bodied public assistance recipients. They are tired of it. If somebody needs a helping hand, we want to help them. But if they are just going to take a free ride, then it is time to tell them to get off the train and help start fueling the engine with the rest of us. Madam Speaker, I found these things over and over again, not just during the current district work break but all along as I have been in public office, that people are saying this is what we want, this is what we want out of Washington, ``We want less; we want more personal freedom.''

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, even though the third largest expenditure of the national budget is the interest on the national debt, there are still Members of Congress and the Senate and the administration who are debating the need to balance our budget. I think this is clearly irresponsible, particularly in view of what we want to do for the future of America, for the future of children, students, senior citizens and so forth. These same people are debating the need to change Medicare, even though the administration has told us that Medicare is going to be out of money and broke within 6 years. The Republican Party is trying to transform Medicare. If you want to help senior citizens, you need to save Medicare. We are working on insurance reform, trying to make insurance more affordable and more accessible. We are working on some Medicare options so that senior citizens can keep their choice of doctors, so senior citizens can join a health maintenance organization if they choose to, if they can get better care. We are trying to cut down on the fraud and abuse in the Medicare system which has driven up the price of it. The average cost payout has gone from $4,700 to $6,300. I hope that the Democrats will join the Republicans in trying to save Medicare rather than partisan grandstanding.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, here we are. This is it. We are on the brink. For the first time since 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives will be passing a balanced budget amendment. This is a historic moment. This is significant. This is real. We spend almost $20 billion each month on the interest alone on the national debt. It is the third largest item, third largest expenditure in our annual budget. In 2 years it will exceed all of military spending. This has got to be brought under control. As my Democrat friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, said, who benefits from balancing the budget? Senior citizens, children, students, the disabled. If you want to do something for them, you have got to give them a tomorrow. If you are going to give them a tomorrow, you have to spend your money properly today. This is not time for partisan rhetoric. This is not time for grandstanding. There are a lot of things you can criticize in this balanced budget amendment, but offer your own. This is the time to do it. This is a crucial crossroads for the United States of America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Is it not true that if the economic growth is 1 percent over the projected growth rate of 2.1 percent over the next 7 years, because of economic growth, we will reduce the deficit $640 billion because of increased revenues because businesses expand, they create jobs, more revenue comes into the Federal budget?

Mr. KINGSTON. Now, as I recall, one of your statistics was that 87 percent of the people who benefit from the tax reduction make a combined income of $75,000 or less, 87 percent of the American people. Is that true?

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I want to ask you, because you are a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget: Now, on the tax increase decrease, can we decrease taxes and balance the budget? Are we being hypocrites?

Mr. KINGSTON. Is the gentleman suggesting some of these questions are staged? I am highly offended.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, you know, Sunday is Mothers' Day. I do not remember my mother in the 40 years that I have been her son, worrying about the Federal budget on Mother's Day. I just do not see ourselves sitting around the house and ringing, ``Oh, my goodness, the Democrats are not going to get their way in Congress. Mother's Day is ruined.'' You know, my mom, my family, we do just fine without the Federal Government running our lives, and that is what the American people want: less Federal Government intervention in the family. The families of America want the Federal Government out of the picture. The best way to protect the family is to make sure that we have a balanced budget so that there will be a Government that is not totally bankrupt in our future, which my mother's grandchildren and their grandchildren will enjoy. You know, a great political campaign was run on this slogan: ``If not us, who; if not now, when; if not this, what?'' The Democrats' answer to that question, ``Well, if not us, somebody; if not now, someday; and if not this, we do not know.'' You know, it is time to come to the table with specifics. Are you going to balance the budget, or are you going to sit here and scare everybody in America that the sky is falling? Let us get responsible, let us enter the debate with the true spirit of facts and not rhetoric.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. The figures are right. It is atrocious, your momma is ashamed of you. But if I read that correctly, in the year 2001, the President's budget has a $276 billion deficit. The Kasich Committee on the Budget proposal has a $108 billion deficit. The year 2002, the President is at a $318 billion deficit. We are at a $15 billion surplus.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think the gentleman ran out of time a little while ago. I wanted to hear about your charts. Alice Rivlin said today there are other places to cut in the budget. She said where the Republican Party was cutting was idiotic. I am sure there are things that the administration does that the Republican Party and Americans think are idiotic. Has the administration cut the budget in their proposal, in the President's budget proposal?

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield back, what is bothering me is we still seem to have folks on the other side of the aisle debating that Medicare is fine and dandy and there are no problems. We can go on ad infinitum with Medicare. We cannot do that. We are driving straight into a brick wall that we will collide with a bus full of senior citizens in 7 years, period. The tragedy of this is look at the wisdom on the Democrat side. I am envious as I look at the Democrat Party. They have a lot of talent and brains over there. I would like, as the Republican Party, to recruit some of their folks. Some of the people I would rather not recruit. I am sure there are folks over here they would rather not recruit. But good gracious, the wisdom of getting the two parties together to come up with a solution for Medicare, would that not be the responsible thing to do for senior citizens? We are wrapping ourselves around momma's bath robe in the name of Mother's Day. We have heard the speeches for the last 40 minutes. What my momma told me to do is put aside party differences and do what is right. That is what we need to do. Medicare needs to be reformed. The Clinton administration, Senator Kerrey, many Democrats, have come out front and said that. Republicans have certainly said that. Take it a step further: To reform it, the American people need the Democrat and the Republican Parties working together on this.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader probably has a point when he was saying--excuse me, I mean the distinguished minority leader, force of habit--Mr. Gephardt, was giving a speech a few minutes ago saying that Medicare is going to be cut. And I think to some degree that you can argue that there is going to be certainly a modification of Medicare, and you may want to say that that is a cut. But I would say, what is better, modifying Medicare or losing Medicare? It will be broke under the current Medicare system in 6 years. It is not a matter of let us keep business as usual and avoid changing Medicare. We have got to do that. You know, I wish that the critics, and most of the critics right now are coming from the minority side of the aisle, would enter into the solution as freely as they have entered into the criticism of the Republican plan. If they could enter the debate with facts and substance, instead of just with tactics and strategy, it would be so helpful. We need the help of the leadership and the wisdom of the Democrat Party. We on the Republican side would be shortchanging ourselves if we said we had all the answers. And that is why our Founding Fathers had a two party system. We need the ideas from both sides of the aisle in order to come up with the solution. The fact is, though, that the Clinton cabinet is the one who said Medicare is going to go broke in 6 years. The Clinton cabinet also has come out with statistics showing that baby boomers are going to be retiring in the year 2002, the Social Security trust fund runs out of money in the year 2030, and these are huge problems. I yield to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Smith.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday House Republican leaders introduced our 7-year program to balance the budget. Democrats and liberal critics immediately jumped on it, crying and screaming and insisting there is another way to balance the budget without cutting spending. So to keep the debate in perspective, I thought I would introduce to the people the Democrat plan to balance the budget and take care of Medicare. Here it is. Excuse me, it is upside down, backward. There you go. There you go. This is it, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat plan to balance the budget and take care of Medicare. I hope it is not in too much detail for my friends on the other side of the aisle. I am sorry to get into such detail during a 1-minute speech. But the fact is, it is May. We have been in session since January. Balancing the budget is a bipartisan responsibility. We are $4.8 trillion in debt. The third largest expenditure on the budget is the interest service on the national debt. Medicare will be broke in 6 years. If we want to help senior citizens, Mr. Speaker, we have got to do a little bit more than this.