Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. KINGSTON. Seven-and-a-half per side. Why do we not go into debt a little bit and borrow some from the next group? Just a joke, guys. We need to figure out our strategy for our 7 minutes to close.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to respond real quickly on the tax cuts thing because, as you know, one of big problems we have is controlling spending on a bipartisan basis, and there is a lot of pressure, no matter what it is, there is not enough for education, not enough for seniors, not enough for the poor, not enough for the farmers. You name the group, this town is geared up in that direction. One great advantage of tax reductions, it is not just a matter of stimulating the economy, we do believe in economic growth and jobs. I think the more money that the people have, and it is not a matter of us affording the tax cuts, it is a matter of can the working folks pay for all the government we are giving them. The more you look at what tax cuts do for the economy, the more jobs that are created. This is just the Standard and Poor's increase since we passed the latest round of tax reductions. Here is the Dow Jones increase. All these mean more jobs out there, more people paying into the system, and revenues will go up. But the best part is the money does not come to Washington, so we do not spend it. I think that is something that we will continue to debate about, and I want to say this has made some progress tonight. I did not know that we had abandoned the pay-go system that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) had mentioned. I want to work with you on that. The balanced budget amendment, it would be an awkward position for me to sign the discharge petition, but philosophically I do support it. I want to help you get that bill to the floor, and I want to pledge that. I am glad we are all mutually interested in zero-based budgeting. Let us move in that direction. Another issue, if we could get away from just the terminology ``mandatory spending'' and say, hey, that is automatic, we are too lazy to debate it year in and year out, nothing is mandatory for the U.S. Congress. That might be something that we can work together on. The gentleman extended this debate invitation originally. Let me right here extend one to you, and let us schedule for next week or whenever we can do it. With that, I yield back and thank the gentlemen for all participating.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do with whatever time is left on our side was give 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart); as I understand it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) does not want any more time. And since you all have about equal time, I know you have some folks that want to speak. Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to tell us at 2-minute intervals? Could you just maybe tap your gavel every 2 minutes?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am kind of losing track of the time here, but just to keep it going, I want to yield to the gentleman from Florida, but I also want to be sure that we are not going to shortchange me at the end of the evening.

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman from Texas wants to speak a little bit about the issue you mentioned about the lobbying groups in town who are out fighting for their little chunk of the pie, because I think his approach to fiscal restraint in the form of tax reform makes some sense. I wanted to make sure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has an opportunity to speak.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have left?

Mr. KINGSTON. Total?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, actually I am glad the gentleman mentioned this, because we are the majority party, we take responsibility for governing. There is no question about that. We get the credit if it is good. We get the blame if it is bad. But let us also admit that often the forces that cause more spending and cause us to get away from the budget, which has always driven me up the wall where we passed a budget in March, but we actually passed the final spending bills in the fall of the year, and by then March is ancient history. No one is really worrying about the budget. They just want to go home and cut a deal, and often it is the other body or the White House that causes large increases. On the topic that the gentleman is talking about, the Republican spending, let me say what the Democrat record is in claiming that nearly every single appropriation bill that we have is not enough money, and I have a copy of some of the amendments that I will get into that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offers every single time on appropriation bills, and the gentleman knows how this business is. The gentleman wants to say we are the majority to help with the Democrats, but it is not just a matter of numbers. The gentleman has split philosophies in his party. The gentleman has some extremely liberal folks; we have some extremely conservative people. And every time they pick up a group here, they lose some votes here. So as they are trying to pass a bill, they get a net 3, but they swap around 9 or 10 votes, and that is one of the things that drives up spending that I want to talk about that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say tonight rather than the usual monologue by one Member, and of course it depends on who the Member is as far as the interest level; and usually if it is your own monologue, you find it very interesting, but the rest of Congress and the American people may not agree, and so the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) of the infamous Blue Dog Caucus has suggested that we have a debate about the budget and spending and other matters of great importance before this House. With that in mind, I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas and his team, and then our team will speak. Our team looks like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and me, and hopefully other Members will be running down here as they see it is our turn at bat.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and understand the need for scientific advice to Members of Congress on complex issues, and I support reports that assist Congress with its work. For this reason, the committee has funded since fiscal year 2002 technology assessments to be completed by the General Accounting Office; and once again, the report accompanying this bill requires the GAO to allocate funding for three studies related to issues facing Congress. With a staff of over 3,200 employees, GAO is in a position to contract for scientific assessments, and an independent expert determined in fiscal year 2002 that the GAO approach and results were sound.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Maryland that I believe it is the intent of this committee to conform with whatever the other Federal employees end up getting in terms of COLAs.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of it, but I certainly am proud of it.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to say that the legislative branch bill is somewhat the inside baseball bill, the operating budget for the U.S. Capitol. It includes not just the legislative branch per se but the Capitol Hill Police, the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office, the General Accounting Office and many other important government agencies which we all depend on. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, and I have worked very closely on our bill this year, and its total spending is $2.7 billion, which is a decrease of about $34 million below last year, or about 1.2 percent. It is 10 percent below the actual request. Every agency has had to take reductions, and we have had to say no to many of our friends to get to this number, but we think that we have been fair across the board. For example, this bill does not require any reductions in the current force, and it fully funds the traditional COLA of the leg branch employees at a level of 3.7 percent. The other thing the bill does, along with keeping a very tight line on the fiscal side of it, is that it does not provide any new authorizations. So we are not changing anything in this bill. It is what we refer to as a clean appropriations bill. One issue that has come up is the U.S. Capitol Police, and they do a great job; and we all here in Congress depend on them, not just every day but really every hour, to keep the U.S. Capitol safe. This is a unique building in that it is a historical building. It is a tourist site in itself; and then, in addition to that, Members of Congress are conducting business in it. So we have lots of people, a mom, dad, the three-and-a-half kids who come up from Peoria, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) would always remind us; as well as the 435 Members of Congress and 100 Members of the Senate conducting business here and hearing from all kinds of constituency groups. Yet throughout all of it, the Capitol Hill Police keeps it safe so that the tourists, the business people and those in government and all the employees can enjoy a safe working environment. Since September 11, we have funded 512 new positions for the Capitol Police. That is a 37 percent increase in a year and a half. The salary account has grown from $113 million in fiscal year 2002 to a requested level of $218 million in fiscal year 2004, so a 93 percent increase in a 2-year period of time for the salary account. General expenses for the police have climbed from $6.7 million in 2001 to a requested level of $72 million in fiscal year 2004, a 975 percent increase. All this has already been done. This is all in the name of security, and we absolutely have supported it. In addition, there has been another $167 million that has been appropriated in supplemental funds. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, can take pride that the Capitol Hill Police Department has moved into the 21st century with a 20 percent increase in salaries over the last 2 years and a lot of other changes that are beneficial to the police officers in terms of recruitment, hiring and retention. But the budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes an increase of 25 percent for the salary account and an increase in general expenses of 158 percent. Increases cannot be sustained at the allocation that we have been given. So at this time we are not going to increase more staffing, as we want them to absorb the growth that we have already given them. Another issue that we spent a lot of time on in committee is the Capitol Visitors Center. The Capitol Visitors Center is something that started out at one level, and is now at a completely different level in terms of spending. The scope of the job changed because we have put in some additional office spaces and because of some security concerns. Yet at the same time we, on this committee, are very concerned that the spending has gotten out of hand. We have not put in a $48 million estimation for additional expenses. We understand the other body has done so; but at this time, the House bill has not and we intend to have a lot of discussions about that before we move forward on it. At present, there are still 37 items, according to a recent GAO study, which are unknown in terms of additional expenses. So our committee is trying to get a good grip on the Capitol Visitors Center--but we are very, very concerned about some of the expenses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say I believe this is a very interesting proposal. I think it is a promising idea and something there is probably a lot of good bipartisan support for. I have sponsored the Congressional Arts Awards Program in my former district for 10 years and have always been amazed by the talent that is out there amongst 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds, and so I would like to see the brilliance that is there from the 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds as well. I remember when I had a science project. We wanted to study if there were more protozoa in a stream where water was moving or a pond where it sat still; and we could not conclude anything, but it was very interesting. My sister studied phototropism and geotropism, and I still remember her project as well. I am always amazed when I go to State science fairs to see the brilliance of these kids and what they are doing. I think this has a lot of potential. It is really an issue that the Committee on House Administration needs to look at, and so I would like to join the gentleman in seeking their guidance and possible action from that committee because we probably would not need to do an appropriations. I am not sure, but we do need to talk to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and seek their guidance on it. I believe that Members could use their existing Members representational allowances so we probably would not appropriate more money, but we will see about that. I want to assure the gentleman that I think we can find a way that Members can sponsor such a high school science competition awards program in their district.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say he is correct. There is no specific language that just says funding in it. And I also want to say that as the chairman of the committee, it certainly would fall on me to know about this language. I have to confess I did not know about it, but I will certainly take responsibility and support the agreement to remove it. I will also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that it may be a topic that at some point we should discuss. But, in the meantime, we should do it in open forum and not through the back door in this manner. This was put in as one of the administrative agency's budgets, but we do certainly agree to take it out.