Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Reverend Micheal Elliott, President of Union Mission, Inc. and a recipient of this year's Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Community Health Leadership Program award. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ranks as one of the largest philanthropies in the country and their mission is devoted to improving the health and health care of all Americans. Let me take a moment to applaud the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's efforts to fund projects that seek diversified solutions to the challenges of health care. This national foundation invests in our futures by supporting training, education, research and projects that demonstrate the effective delivery of health care services. All of us benefit from their commitment to improving health and health care. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation honors ten individuals each year who have found creative solutions to bring health care to communities whose needs have been ignored or unmet. This award is considered the nation's highest honor for community health leadership and includes a $100,000 program grant. I am pleased that they have recognized Reverend Micheal Elliott. Recognizing that poor health care prolongs homelessness, Reverend Elliott developed partnerships among the diverse private and public organizations serving the homeless to create a shelter based clinic. Reverend Elliott established the J.C. Lewis Health Center of Union Mission, a 32-bed respite center which provides care to the homeless who are too sick to recover in shelters, but not sick enough to remain in hospitals. This well-conceived project provides much needed care to the homeless as well as saves the country's three major hospitals millions of dollars annually in the costs of unnecessary hospitalizations. By integrating services for this vulnerable population, Reverend Elliott and his organization bridged the gap in service and helped to reduce homelessness in Savannah. Reverend Elliott's efforts confirm that innovative approaches and collaborative efforts are very effective tools in resolving the health care challenges that many communities face. Finally, the real strength of these creative programs is the compassion of Reverend Elliott. I've known Mike for years--he is energetic, dedicated and bold. He mixes idealism with practicality, and assembles a group of personalities and talents together to make things happen. I believe it is his ``outside of the box'' thinking that makes the difference.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understand on this point of order, though, and make it abundantly clear to all Members of the House that if this amendment had offsets to make up for these additional massive spending increases by simply taking the dollars and reducing them elsewhere in the bill, this amendment would, in fact, be in order.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, what we are arguing about here is not crime, is not child care, is not education. What we are arguing is how much of an increase the House mark increases funding for all these programs. What the Democrats are trying to do with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is increase it further. We certainly support after-school child care. We certainly support the block grants. We are a strong supporter of Head Start. That is why it has increased every year under Republican leadership. But the Hoyer amendment fails to make the case as to why these funding levels were picked. Could he explain why he decided that when we go from $600 million on the 21st Century After-School Centers he goes to a thousand, why that level? Was there scientific? Was there research? Was there testimony to that effect? No, there was not. All the Democrats are trying to do is increase our increase to show that they measure compassion by dollars spent. It is not going to do the job.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, consider the case of Sue and Dan Williams. I am going to change the name a little bit, but they are real people. Sue was on welfare for several years, trapped in the hopeless welfare cycle and then during welfare, because of welfare reform, decided, okay, it is time to get a job. And she was a little scared about it, but she got a job and needed to have some child care. And that is a mother's primary concern, which it should be. And we all admire mothers for that. That is why in the welfare reform bill there was $20 billion in child care for people like Sue and Dan Williams for their children, $20 billion. In addition to that, when the senior citizens and their family have to live with them, there is dependent care, a tax credit for families like that. There is social services, block grants. There is child care to States and entitlement programs to the tune of $8.8 billion in Federal support for the child care programs through the year 2001. These programs are strongly, strongly supported by Congress on both sides of the aisle, programs such as Head Start, Even Start, the Campus-Based Child Care, IDEA Services for Preschoolers and Infant Programs for after school. Mr. Chairman, I have been to some of these after-school programs. These children are learning things. They are learning life skills. They are learning to work with each other. They are learning play acting and things that build their self-esteem. These are very good programs. The chairman of this committee has worked hard to support this stuff. He has gone out in the field. He has not stayed in the ivory tower of Washington and waited for the White House to hand down some irresponsible number, some risky scheme from the Gore-Clinton administration. He has gone out and said, how do these programs actually work? How do they affect real people? This is not a matter of political rhetoric. This is not a matter of, well, we are going to spend more money than them. It is a matter of Sue and Dan Williams and their children and their parents and caring for them. I think the committee and the chairman of the committee have done the right thing on this. What I would say to my colleagues across the aisle, we keep hearing how, well, if we have to have more money, well, maybe we do, but maybe we ought to look at the efficiency of these programs, as well. Is it possible under the Clinton-Gore model that too much of the money is being squandered by wasteful Washington bureaucrats? Is it possible that a lot of that money never leaves Washington, D.C., and if we go down to HUD or if we go down to some of these Federal Government agencies we can find the money on the sixth floor, third office down to our right because it never gets out of that bureaucrat's hands and to the streets where it can help the children of the Williams. That is what the committee mark is all about. The committee has made a significant commitment in this and will continue to. Think about Head Start alone increased by $400 million, 8 percent above last year's in order to serve an additional 20,000 kids. Think about the level. It is the highest in the 35-year history. That is very, very significant. The Child Care Development Block Grant is increased by $400 million, 34 percent. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) has gone out and reviewed these programs. He has asked the bureaucracies to be more efficient. But he has also said we have got to help as many children as possible and he has done it in the best interest of America's kids. It is sad to me that people would come up with arbitrary numbers to irresponsibly use children as a pawn in some political chess game. It upsets me. Because they know in their heart of hearts this money comes from Social Security, it does not come from some other area. If they want to spend this money irresponsibly, they have to go home and tell our seniors, well, do you know what we did? We did what we did for 40 straight years, we dipped back into that Social Security Trust Fund. And they should not be doing that, Mr. Chairman, because Social Security should be handled on a bipartisan basis. It is not a matter of Democrat versus Republican. It is a matter of putting our seniors first. That is why I do not think we should just irresponsibly and arbitrarily come up with numbers to increase programs for political purposes. We have to do what is best for children. We have to do what is best for seniors. That is why I support the mark of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) on this and I think we should reject, respectfully reject, the Obey amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in the Democrats' not-ending attempt to create class warfare and their obsession of hate and vengeance towards the successful in our society, they forget the small business owner or the family farmer who has to pay as much as 50 percent of their entire value of their assets when they die. Just think about a small farm in south Georgia where, for generations, it has been passed down from generation to generation, from mom, dad, mom, dad, daughter and everything, and then the owner dies one day, and in order to pay for the farm, in order to pay for the inheritance, the kids have to sell. Then there is one more strip shopping center. Imagine one of the many new women entrepreneurs who owns a small business and builds it up over 20 years, and then has to plan her estate. She wants to pass it to your daughter, but guess what, the Democrats do not want her to. They want that to go to Uncle Sam. What does she do? Simply dies, but on the day that she dies, the Democrat party wants her to be visited not just by the undertaker but by the IRS. It is time to repeal the death tax.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, Susan Tagera left her corporate job at IBM and decided to pursue her American dream of owning her own business, a bicycle shop. She worked real hard over the 21 years to build up this shop and get a good clientele. Unfortunately, now she has breast cancer. She has to do something about the shop. She is passing it on to her son. Only one problem. It has got an estate tax problem. See Uncle Sam has got it so that enterprising businesswoman like Susan cannot successfully pass their business on to the next generation. That is why we need estate tax relief so that small business owners like Susan and millions all over America and family farmers can pass on what they have worked hard and struggled for and dreamed about, just pass it on to the next generation. At the same time, they will be economically independent so that they will not have to depend on tax dollars for their livelihood and long- term care in the future. They have become independent. Why does our Tax Code penalize them? This week, Congress has a chance to help Susan out by voting for estate tax relief. I hope that all Members on both sides support this legislation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party continues to work on the B.E.S.T. agenda for the American people. B stands for building up the military and looking after our veterans and military retirees and active duty personnel. E stands for excellence in education, local control, where the dollars go to the teacher in the classroom, not Washington bureaucrats. The S is for preserving and strengthening Social Security. A major accomplishment of Republicans in Congress was to say to the President, don't just preserve 62 percent of the surplus, preserve 100 percent. And let's quit spending that money on roads and bridges. Also, let us protect Medicare and pay down the debt. Our budget pays down the public debt by the year 2013. As a father, I think that is one of the best things that I can go home and talk about. Then the T in the word ``best'' stands for tax relief. After we fulfill our obligations in Social Security, Medicare and debt reduction, let us return the overpayment in government to the American people. They work 50 and 60 hours a week. Money does not grow on trees. It does not come from Washington. It comes from hardworking taxpayers. Let us return the money to them.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Thunderbolt Elementary School in Thunderbolt, Georgia. Thunderbolt Elementary has been chosen by the Annual American Set a Good Example Competition to receive one of three national 3rd place awards for the best project completed by students to influence their own peers in a positive way: away from drug abuse, crime and violence while focusing on moral virtues such as honesty, trustworthiness and competence. Students at Thunderbolt Elementary, under the careful instruction of their teacher, Beverly Small, did a series of projects based on setting good examples over the school year. Some of the accomplishments included weekly reading competitions, planting trees and flowers around campus, holding a canned food drive, essay writings on setting good examples, and establishing Parents are Terrific awards for assisting children with their homework. The students have worked hard to demonstrate good will and respect for others, and because of these kinds of efforts they are not experiencing drug problems, crime, cheating, or violence in this school. It has become a family school, and parents tell me their children feel loved because the teachers take the time to listen. It is with my utmost admiration and commendation that I recognize Thunderbolt Elementary School students, teachers, and administration for achieving the national honor by setting a good example for all of us.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to listen to the 1 minutes today, and I was wondering if the previous speaker happened to mention how his vote was on the bill that we had on the floor that actually did require trigger locks, that did close the loopholes at gun shows, and did put a ban on certain kinds of assault weapon clips? We had that vote. Interestingly, the Democrats voted against it. Why did they vote against it? Because the loophole that was being closed in the gun show was not great enough for them, and it is odd, because it was actually offered by a fellow Democrat. Now, that motion was something that I think a lot of Members of Congress would support. But, unfortunately, and it pains me, and I hope some of this was conveyed to some of these mothers, that the Democrats fought it. They had a shot at trigger locks, they had it in their hand to ban certain clips, and, of course, to close the loopholes on gun shows, but they voted no. We might get another chance. I hope this time the Democrats put their rhetoric in front of their politics and put philosophy in front of politics and try to do the right thing.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the substitute. Although I do not think it is the perfect document, I think it is certainly better than what we have here. What we have here is a bill, CARA, that does three fundamentally wrong things. Number one, it abdicates the right, the constitutional obligations and responsibility of Congress, gives it to the State legislatures, gives it to the governors, gives it to unelected officials. We hear from the proponents of CARA that 50 governors support it. Well, I would be disturbed if the governors did not support a largess of several million dollars of tax dollars given to them. Hello. What is remarkable about that? The fact is it is Federal money, and it should be spent by the Federal Government. The other part is here we are in the Federal Government $5.4 trillion in debt, and we are going to give this money to States that have a surplus of $70 billion. Indeed, the State of California alone has a $3 billion surplus. But the big underlying question is how much land should the Federal Government own? Now, this is a map of the United States of America. We can see, okay, this is land that is up for grabs for business, for families, for development. But do my colleagues know what? One-third of this land has already been purchased by the Federal Government, and that does not include military bases. That is the equivalent of just lopping off one- third. Now, I have asked the proponents of CARA, how much land should the Federal Government own? Should it be 25 percent? Should it be 32 percent? Should it be 50 percent? Not one person can answer that question. They will not even support a study saying how much land should be owned by the Federal Government. The substitute measure puts some common sense into the CARA law. It tries to bridge their passion for buying land with some fiscal responsibility, saying put maintenance first, and think about the other formulas. Do not abdicate one's responsibility as a Federal Government. Do not let the United States get continued to be gobbled up by political bureaucrats.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think to understand the Calvert amendment, what we really need to do is go back to the basic philosophy of the bill, which is to say that the $5.4 trillion debt ridden national government is going to take $3 billion a year and give that to the State governments and other Federal government for land buying. Even though the State governments have a 70-billion surplus, we are going to take our money and give it to these cash-risk States. Now, what the Calvert amendment does say is, okay, even under that crazy logic, let us try to put some common sense in it and say that, under this any-willing-buyer clause, they need to make sure that it really means any willing buyer. Because the bill clearly says, or, if by act of Congress, Congress decides to buy something, it does not matter if they are willing or not, they are going to come after them. The Calvert amendment addresses that, number one. Number two, what it says is that the State governments are not governed by the any-willing-buyer provision. All the Calvert amendment says is that, since we are giving the money to the State governments and it is Federal money that they will be using to purchase this land, we are simply saying that they should have to go by the any-willing-buyer provision. This is a private property issue. This is a fundamental Constitutional right of Americans. This is a no-brainer. I do not think we should even have a vote on it. I encourage people just to accept this amendment and let us move on.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. I will give the gentleman one more shot. How much, 50 percent?

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California, and I just want a quick answer. Twenty-five percent, thirty-five percent, forty percent, fifty percent? How much?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, regular order, please, Mr. Chairman. The question is, how much land should the Federal Government own? Twenty-five percent, 35 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? The lead cosponsor of this bill cannot answer the question and instead gives us this fishy answer.

Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely. I am looking for a percentage, 25 percent, 50 percent? How much land should the Federal Government own?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reclaimed the time before it expired.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but against the bill. This is very, very interesting, what we have going on here. Everybody is talking about how the Federal Government has to own it. The Federal Government has to own it, or else it does not seem to count for the proponents of this bill. The Federal Government seems to have the franchise on environmental consciousness. Of course we do not want the private property people in on it because of private ownership, and the State governments which, under the Tancredo amendment, are not only supported, but encouraged to buy the land. The State governments are not given any credit. We do not hear from the proponents of CARA which, as we all know, stands for Congress abdicating the rights of Americans, because what it is is we are running from our responsibilities of voting for land acquisitions or voting against land acquisitions. We are going to turn it over to other people. Mr. Chairman, the curious thing is that the proponents of CARA do not say how much land we should own. I will ask them, can any of my colleagues who are supporting CARA tell me how much Federal land we should own in this country?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I will be glad to continue the dialogue under the gentleman's time. But here is the question. They do not know how much Federal land we should own. Right now it is 32 percent. Basically, that is everything east of the Mississippi River. Now, how much should it be? Maybe the current 32 percent is not enough. Maybe we should have 50 percent in Federal Government hands. I do not know. I wish the people who are pushing CARA, $2.8 billion a year in Federal acquisition money for 15 years, could tell us. The point is, we are concerned on behalf of our State governments, on behalf of private landowners that this is a Federal Government land grab, and we are very concerned about that. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, and as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) says, colleagues come to our committee every year for this land in New Jersey and we have been supporting it. We will continue to support it under the Tancredo-Pombo amendment. What is wrong with that? That is the constitutional process laid out by our Founding Fathers in 1789. But suddenly, that is not good enough. We have to have this new law. I urge my colleagues to look at this very carefully.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I want to go back to the chart that was used earlier. This, Madam Chairman, is the $2.8 billion that each year goes to CARA. Do my colleagues know what, in relation to the large $1.8 trillion budget, one can argue that is a very, very thin slice of the pizza. However, let me speak to you as an appropriator. We have lots of competing needs: education need, children with disabilities, defense needs, Social Security, grandmothers raising grandchildren, foster kid care, Medicare, day care, Kosovo. Everything that is in the Federal Government has to come out of this pie. Now, this $2.8 billion in relation to $1.8 trillion is not that much. But let me tell my colleagues, $2.8 billion a year is not a small amount of money. That is a huge amount of money. I can tell my colleagues one thing. If they got home to their seniors and say, ``Would you want to spend that money on Social Security or on new lands when we already have one-third of the land in America owned by the Federal Government'', they are probably going to say, ``Do you know what? I am more concerned about long-term health care.'' Because seniors cannot afford $50,000 a year for long-term health care. They could come up with other ways to spend that $2.8 billion. So the question is, under the Shadegg amendment, do we put this land acquisition money in front of Social Security? Do we put land acquisition in front of paying down the debt for our children? Do we put it in front of Medicare. I do not think we do. I do not think our seniors want us to do that. If my colleagues think they can vote on this one because it is going to gut this bill, they are going to vote against it, let me tell them, I would be very careful because they will be explaining this vote for a long, long time. We have all worked very hard to support debt reduction, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This gives us a chance to make sure that we all come together and say, does one know what? These are very important things, and I am going to support the Shadegg amendment for that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the point of the Peterson amendment is that it limits CARA funds, but it does not limit the ability of the Committee on Appropriations or the authorizing committee.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, I want my colleagues to pay real close attention to what the Pombo amendment is saying. It simply says, if they are a landowner and they are next door to Federal land, then their property rights should not be diminished. For crying out loud, this is a no-brainer. Is this not the United States of America? I know Cuba has been in the news a lot lately. Are we starting to emulate what goes on in other countries or imitate it? We are saying, if they own private land next to private land, their rights should not be diminished and this is being rejected by people who have sworn an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of America? This amendment is being rejected by fellow Americans? For crying out loud, all we are saying is that if they own land next to the Federal Government, they get their constitutional rights. But I cannot believe it. My friend and colleagues are saying, no, no, no. We are the Government and there are things the common people do not understand, because we are Washington and we have the franchise on this intellectual elitism that is going to run the country in the new world order and we do not want fellow Americans to enjoy the right of pursuit of happiness and property. This is a sad day, my colleagues. I may say this speech with a little flippancy. But all the Pombo amendment says is that, if their land is next to the Federal Government land, they can enjoy their private property rights constitutionally given to them, written at the Constitutional Convention in 1789. We are saying, no, the Congress of the United States in the year 2000 is too advanced to accept those long-standing principles. This amendment should be accepted without a vote.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I am really curious as to how the authors of the bill do not quite seem to understand their own bill yet, because they keep saying if this bill passes, we will not be able to purchase more land. Well, the distinguished chairman of the Interior Committee on Appropriations is here, and he will tell us the committee can continue buying land as it is. It is just that $2.8 billion becomes a land entitlement, which I know is the goal of the Democratic party to create a new entitlement. The Republicans seem to be going in agreement with that. Some of them are. The reality is you can still, on top of this, buy land. If Members do not believe me, go back to 2 hours ago, where you accepted the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman's amendment says that the CARA funding will simply supplement annual appropriations for activities of the National Park Service. Now, that is making it clear. It is just a supplement, a $2.8 billion supplement. It is one that unfortunately a lot of our Members seem to want to put in front of Medicare and Social Security, I am very upset about that, as I know seniors are, that some people are still concerned about putting land acquisition in front of Medicare and Social Security, which seems to be one of the purposes of CARA. One of the other points that was mentioned earlier tonight is that this fixes something that is broken. Let us. The Federal Government owns 32 percent of the land in the United States of America, not counting military posts, but it is broken. The purchasing mechanism is broken? I do not follow that. It does not make sense to me. I would say it is working real well. Then this concept of any willing buyer, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) said, what is this, a garage sale? Somebody has got some land and the Federal Government is obligated to buy it? What about the vision and the question that still remains unanswered by the proponents of CARA; how much land in the United States of America should the Federal Government own? 25 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent. I would love to hear that answer from the CARA people so we can put a cap on this.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, now we peek behind the curtains of the back room of the great CARA brain trust and we find, behind the platitudes of all of this fairness and this need for consistency which seems to be driving CARA, we find a special interest exemption for one particular county in California. How curious. How curious that we keep hearing the need for CARA is for consistency, to get away from politics, and yet we find one county outside the 200-mile limitation, cut out a special little special interest, a cherry stem. Let us bring it in. Well, this is one of the problems with CARA. It is a bill, and it is probably full of other sweetheart deals for counties. Yet, under their own CARA rules, if CARA was such a big deal, such a great bill, such a consistent bill, such a fair bill, why would we need to have a special little cherry stem for a county. It does not make sense. If this county deserves special emergency or Federal funds or assistance, then let it come out in the daylight, not in some little amendment. Let them go through the appropriations process, the authorization process. Mr. Chairman, I think that that is just typical of what the whole bill is full of, particular little special interest things. We have had the opportunity to peer behind the curtain and see what is really going on. We keep hearing this bill is so good for the States. Well, California is one of those States with a $3 billion surplus. Yet, under CARA, we are going to send them Federal tax money, and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, we are the national Congress, we are not the State of California Congress. It is our job to look after the national picture, not special interest in California. Let the California legislature, with its $3 billion surplus, spend money on the needs of this county.