Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I think that it is the intention of the House that before we increase foreign aid, we want to take care of the good people of North Carolina. Again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, we want 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund protected and kept for Social Security. We do not want to increase taxes and we showed that yesterday by a vote of 419 to 0, no tax increase. The only place to get the money is to reduce spending, create some savings within the existing budget so that we can distribute it fairly and evenly and use common sense as the rule of thumb.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), he has a genuine problem. I represent coastal Georgia and we were scared to death. I and my family and loved ones and all of my friends participated in one of the largest peacetime evacuations in the history of the country. In fact, I think it was the largest. I know what the hurricane and the floods have done to North Carolina, and I know that the gentleman does have towns that are under water. I know that hog farms have floated away, and I know that one million chickens have been drowned and there has been a huge dent in the food supply, the personal suffering of people. I understand that that damage, although no one has a real grip on it, may be as high as $2.2 billion.

Mr. KINGSTON. Yet the President wants to increase foreign aid $2.2 billion. Those people have not paid taxes. The good people in North Carolina have paid taxes. What are we doing? We have a flood, a major disaster in one of our own States, and it is going to be about $2 billion; but the President has chosen, instead, to veto foreign aid and wants to spend an extra $2 billion of hard-working taxpayer monies and send it to Communist countries like North Korea.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to kind of review the events of the last year in terms of the budget situation that we are in with the House. As my colleagues know, the House convened in January and at that time, the President of the United States stood in that well and proposed that we spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus. He said, I think we should only reserve 60 percent and dedicate the rest to a number of programs that he had outlined in his presentation. Well, we on the Republican side and many of the Democrats said, you know what, Mr. President, we want to preserve 100 percent of Social Security. Because after all, if one is an employee in a factory and one works and one puts money aside in a retirement plan, when one retires, by law, that plan has to be there; that money has to be there for you. Only in the United States of America can we mix a retirement plan with operating expenses, and we call that Social Security, and it is wrong. This time, things have been different. For the first time in modern history, the U.S. Congress has not spent one dime of Social Security on anything else but Social Security. It is very significant. So now we are in this budget negotiation. The genesis of the budget agreement was 1997 and there was a bipartisan budget agreement. Democrat Members, Republican Members, the White House, the Senate, the House, everybody signed off on a bipartisan agreement to get spending under control. I think as a result of that, partly, but mostly because of the strong economy, the budget has now become balanced. That is to say, we do not have a deficit, yet we still have a debt. We have a debt of $5.4 trillion. That money, Mr. Speaker, has to be paid by our children if we do not do anything about it. So I do not think it is just good enough for us to pat ourselves on the back that we have eliminated the deficit. We have to go back and pay off the debt. So right now we have this budget agreement in place, and that has been the guide for 13 different appropriation bills. Most of these have passed the House and the Senate, and they are at the White House. A few of them are going to be done in the next, probably 5 legislative days. Yet the President has already vetoed the foreign aid bill. He wants us to spend more money on foreign aid. So we say to the President and Al Gore, because the vice president is very much involved in this process, we say, Mr. Gore, Mr. Clinton, where do you want the money to come from for more foreign aid? We do not think the House has the will to raise taxes and, indeed, yesterday by a vote of 419 to 0, Democrats joined Republicans in rejecting the Clinton-Gore tax package, 419 to 0. To increase taxes, that is not an option. Spending Social Security, I think now the President has backed off spending the 40 percent of the Social Security surplus; and he has joined Republicans saying, okay, let us do what businesses do. Let us preserve 100 percent of it. So if we are not going to get money out of Social Security, and we agree on that and we are not going to get money out of raising taxes, then where are you going to get the money, Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton, to spend more money on foreign aid? Now, I do not think we should spend more money on foreign aid. I think the foreign aid bill this year is one of the lowest bills we have had in many years. The taxpayers of America are fed up with foreign aid. I supported the package because it was a good reduction in foreign aid, but now Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton want to raise it. We are saying, it cannot be gotten out of Social Security. It cannot be gotten out of taxes. The only thing that can be done is hold the line on spending, and we hope that they will join us in that effort.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am also confused by the comments of the previous speaker. The bill to which he is referring to that funds Head Start and so many valuable education programs is included in this continuing resolution, which we will be voting on today. And I certainly hope, in the name of the children and those programs, he plans to vote in the affirmative. I am further confused when he talks about no achievements by this Congress. We passed the lockbox, and because of the lockbox, which says we will not spend Social Security funds for anything but Social Security. For the first time in history this Congress, or at least first time in recent history, this Congress, and this chart shows it, has not spent any Social Security funds on anything but Social Security. Now, in contrast, the President of the United States said in January let us make Social Security the number one priority and has yet to introduce a bill. So I would ask my Democrat friends where their bill is. I know there is a lot of lockstep going on over there with the White House, but where is their bill? If they are concerned about Social Security, where is their bill? The Educational Flexibility Act, giving teachers in the classrooms more control and bureaucrats in Washington less control, we passed that. That probably was offensive to many of these Democrats. Missile defense system, protecting the United States of America, passed by this House. Probably nothing big to Democrats. A 4.8 percent pay raise for our military people, trying to close the 13 percent pay gap, which has done nothing but grow under the current anti-military administration. No problem, because these folks do not like that kind of thing. What I also do not understand is why the Democrats want to give the executive branch so much more power over the legislative branch. I can see maybe for partisan reasons why they have to go with the President sometimes, but they go with the President every time. They need to stand up. They represent districts, not the White House. I think they should go back to their districts, and if people say do whatever the President says, then they should keep acting the way they are. But I suspect that the folks in my Democrat friends' districts, just like mine, do not send me to Washington to be a one-party water carrier. They want us to do what is best for them and what is best for the United States. But here my friends go really abdicating their power as legislators and giving it willingly to the executive branch in the name of party politics. We made a budget agreement in 1997. Now, an agreement, by definition, has to have two parties. And we all popped corks, drank champagne, hugged each other, Democrat and Republican, brotherly love and all that over at the White House, and said we have a budget agreement. And I will say this, the gentleman from Wisconsin did not vote for that agreement, neither did I, but the majority of Democrats, the majority of Republicans did, and the White House signed off on it. Why is it now only up to the Republicans to carry on this agreement? Why can the Democrats not live up to what they said they were going to do in 1997? Why are we having this dialogue? Why are we having this fight? Let us get over Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Guilty as charged. The deficit went up. And as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, it is the responsibility of the Democrat Congress. But let us do what we can today for 1999 and the year 2000. Let us balance the budget and not do it out of Social Security.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to start off reading a letter that I received in my office from a couple, and I am just going to say Julia and Walter L. from Minneapolis, Minnesota. They actually were not writing me, but they carboned me on it. They were writing their own Representative. It said, ``Dear Congressman, We are Social Security recipients, and we vote. Despite the assurances of politicians, we are anxious about the safety of the Social Security Trust Fund. Specifically, we would appreciate your reply to the statement by Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia today on the House floor. ``Mr. Kingston stated that President Clinton wants to spend 30 percent more on foreign aid and to fund that increase entirely from the Social Security Trust Fund. We would like you to respond to Representative Kingston's statement on the House floor.'' Well, I am not sure if this particular Representative did respond or not, but I would like to respond to Julia and Walter L.'s letter myself and say here is the situation that we are in with the budget, and foreign aid happens to be the first bill that the President has vetoed and required more spending of. Now, he has also vetoed the Washington, D.C. budget, but I think that is because he wanted to have some more abortion language put in there or some other social reasons. So, really, it was not that much that related to money. But the situation that we are in really started in 1997, 1997 when the Democrats and the Republicans passed a bipartisan budget agreement. This 1997 agreement said that we are going to spend X amount of dollars each year until the budget is balanced, and then we are going to continue on that and pay down the debt. It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, to wipe out one's deficit which is one's annual shortfall, but it is another thing to actually go out and pay down the debt. The easiest way to envision that is to just think about one's MasterCard. Most Members have a MasterCard or a Visa. Most people do. Imagine if, each month, one were in the red on that, and one could not quite pay it off. But, finally, one month, one paid it off. Well, that does not mean that one is going on a spending spree because the bank is still saying, ``Glad you paid it off this month, but what about the 3 previous months? You have got to go back and pay that amount.'' Well, Congress has one heck of a credit card, and we have run up the national debt of well over $5.4 trillion. That is trillion. That is an inconceivable amount of money if my colleagues think of one of the things that Mr. Larry Burkett said in the book called The Coming Economic Earthquake, that if one stacked thousand dollar bills up one on top of each other, to get to $1 million, it would come to about 4 inches high. About that high, Mr. Speaker. But if one stacked thousand dollar bills on top of each other, to get to $1 trillion, it is 33 miles high. That is the difference between $1 million and $1 trillion as depicted by thousand dollar bills. So we have this $5.4 trillion debt. So we should not go on a spending spree. Regardless of what the President wants to spend it on, it is not good to go on a spending spree. Now, we know that he has done that in Bosnia. We have already spent $12 billion in Bosnia. Our troops were originally supposed to be there for, I think, a year, maybe 2 years. Now, 5 years later, we are still in Bosnia and in the Balkans and Yugoslavia and everywhere else, $12 billion and 5 years later. Well, so now we have got this 1997 historic bipartisan budget agreement. Now the question is: Do we stick with it? To me, when one makes an agreement, one knows down home in Georgia, and I know it is this way in Minnesota, one sticks with one's agreement. Now, unfortunately, we do not do that many agreements on a handshake anymore. We put things in writing. We call them contracts. This thing was actually in writing. Should it now be up to one party to enforce that agreement? Should the Democrats alone be responsible because they voted for it? Should they? Or should the Republicans alone be responsible because they voted it? No. Both parties should be responsible, Democrats and Republicans. Yet, sadly, it seems that the White House has forgotten all about this agreement, and they do not want to participate in it anymore. So here we are in a budget crisis. Now we have got three choices. The President wants to spend more money in foreign aid, more money to North Korea, more money to Iran, more money to Iraq, more money to Russia, more money to the former Soviet States. We can get money from three ways around here, or we can balance the budget in three ways. Number one, we can cut spending in one program to put it into another. Number two, we can raise taxes. Well, today on the House floor, we gave the President and his liberal allies a chance to raise taxes. As my colleagues know, the President's tax increase proposal was for $19.2 billion, and he has said many times he wants to increase the tax on cigarettes. That was in there. There were all kinds of user fees. So on this $19 billion tax and fee increase package that the President of the United States sent to Congress, we had a vote on it. Today that vote failed 419 to zero. That is right. On a bipartisan basis, all the Democrats and all the Republicans who voted voted against the President's tax increase proposal. So that eliminates that. So if we do not want to cut spending, we do not want to raise taxes, then the last pot of money in this town is to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. That is why we are saying that the President is willing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to spend more money on foreign aid. Now think about this, Mr. Speaker, grandmother, grandfather sitting around the breakfast table, reading the newspaper, sipping a little coffee, writing a letter to the grandchildren, commenting on the morning news. They happen it see, ``Hey, look at this, honey. The President wants to increase foreign aid, 30 percent increase. We are spending $12.7 billion going to foreign countries, money that was raised on the backs of hard-working taxpayers in America. We are already spending $12.7 billion on foreign countries. The President wants to spend more.'' So the grandmother may turn to the grandfather and say, ``Honey, where would he get that money?'' Well, it looks like he is going to get it out of our Social Security because his $19 billion tax increase package has failed. One can blame that on Congress, but all the Democrats voted to kill his tax increase. Well, maybe the President will cut spending elsewhere. Well, do my colleagues know what is funny? I read here that Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) met with the President today at the White House, and he said, ``No, we are not going to cut spending.'' Well, that leaves Social Security. We have a huge Social Security surplus right now. But we have said in the Republican side, we do not want to spend one dime of Social Security on any reason except for Social Security. This is a profound change of culture in this town. Let me show my colleagues a chart that was prepared by the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations. I hope I am holding this still. I hope I am putting it in the eye of the camera. But this is spending from the Social Security Trust Fund. It starts out at the far end of the column, and it shows that, from 1980 to 1984, the way we did our accounting, no money for general operating purposes came out of the Social Security Trust Fund. So here is the chart. Spending from the Social Security Trust Fund, 1980 to 1984, zero money. That is actually an accounting reference. It is not truly accurate. But do my colleagues know what? I was not in Congress in 1984, and there may have been some good things that happened. There may have been some bad things that happened in the budget that year. But I am not going to worry, for practical purposes, about the 1980 to 1984 budget. But look what happened in 1984. Money started coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund for general operating expenses. In 1985 about $10 billion. In 1986, $20 billion. Here in 1989, we are up to $50 billion coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund. And then here it dips. And I am glad it dipped, although I am not exactly sure why. And then it goes back up. And, sadly, I want to say that this has happened under Democrat and Republican control. This part of the chart, Democrat controlled; this part is Republican controlled. But now, in a drop, a change in the culture in this town, in the year 2000 we have not spent one nickel out of the Social Security Trust Fund. This is an extremely important and extremely historical fact that we have to really pound over and over again; that this is not speculation, this is not rhetoric, this is truth. Now, I am going to go back to the desk and I will read a paper on that. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office, and we are all used to hearing, and we loosely throw the term around, the CBO. That is the Congressional Budget Office. It kind of sounds like a bunch of pointy-head, bean-counting accountants. And maybe they are a little bit over there. But I have a lot of respect for accountants and number crunchers. People who can look at numbers 8 hours a day have to be very smart. Well, we sent a letter down to those folks and we asked them under our budget, for the last year, have we spent any money out of the Social Security surplus? And they wrote back to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Now, remember, this is a nonpartisan group. These people are true to the numbers only. They cannot be manipulated one way or the other. On September 30, 1999, Dan Crippen, who is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, he wrote the Speaker of the House back and said, ``You requested that we estimate the impact on the fiscal year 2000 Social Security surplus using CBO's economic and technical assumptions based on a plan whereby net discretionary outlays for fiscal year 2000 will equal $592.1 billion. CBO estimates that this spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus in the fiscal year 2000.'' So let me repeat that, because there is a little accounting jargon in here. Basically, the important part for my colleagues and I to concentrate on and be proud of is that the CBO, again the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that this spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus in fiscal year 2000. This is so important, because we have finally likened this to the guy who has been bobbing around out in the sea and finally gets on to the beach. That does not mean he is guaranteed survival, it just means he is not going to drown any more. He is safely on the beach. So we have finally gotten to the point where we are not spending Social Security surplus funds. And, now, what will happen? Well, now the President is putting pressure on us and wants to break the budget agreement and wants to spend Social Security. Again, I am saying that because the political will to raise taxes is not there. The vote today, 419 to 0. Every single Democrat, every single Republican said no to the President's $19.1 billion tax increase. So we are saying no to that and the President is saying no to less spending. So the conclusion of any logical person is that he wants to take the money out of Social Security. I hope that he will reconsider that position. It is really not the President who is worried about it. I think it is the Vice President. Because a recent article in The Washington Post says that Vice President Gore's plan is to take money out of Social Security; that that is part of Vice President Gore's budget. This might be one reason why Bill Bradley is doing so well. I do not know, and I do not want to get into the politics of that, but if I were the Bradley folks right now, I would pay real close attention to that. So let us talk about the Republican budget plan in general. We have basically a triangle, and the top of that triangle is we want to save and protect Social Security. Republicans do not want to use any of that money for any purposes except for Social Security. But if we go back into where we were 10 months ago, we know that the President of the United States 10 months ago, the Clinton-Gore people, proposed spending 40 percent of the budget surplus and $344 billion of Social Security on more government programs. The President stood in that well right in front of the Speaker of the House and said that we should protect 60 percent of the budget surplus. Well, why 60 percent? If we were to put money in a retirement account, it should be there for our retirement. Imagine working for X, Y, Z Wigits. Let us say we work for a shoe company, and we worked hard for that shoe company for 25 years on the factory line, and we put money into the retirement account. And then, lo and behold, the day came to retire and the boss said, well, guess what, I needed some new production equipment a couple of years ago, so I put that retirement money into that. But, hey, do not worry, it was well spent. And then later I needed a little money for a raise for another worker, for somebody else, and so I gave some of that money for that. And then, of course, the new sign on the shoe factory, we needed to get that paid for, so I took that out of the retirement fund, too. If that happened to an American worker, he or she would sue and wind up owning that shoe factory, because that is the law of the land. But in Congress we can take grandmother's Social Security money and spend it on roads and bridges and congressional salaries and departments and bureaucrats all day long and there is no problem with it. But we have stopped that. And that is the very big significance between the Democrat and the Republican Party, is that for the first time in history we have said no to spending the Social Security surplus on anything but Social Security. It is the first point of our budget, 100 percent of Social Security, and we put it in what we call a security lockbox. And the security lockbox just says that not only are we not going to spend it by voting not to spend it, but we are even going to create an accounting mechanism to make sure that the trust fund is safely locked away. So we did that. We called it a lockbox, and it passed here on an overwhelming basis. It went over to the Senate and, lo and behold, the Senate, under the direction of the Clinton-Gore team, has said no to the lockbox. So now it is stuck over there. But I call on the liberals in the Senate to please, please do what they can do to get this thing done, because it is very important. Again, it had bipartisan support on the floor of the House. Well, we took another step in our budget. We went to debt reduction. We do not talk about debt reduction around here, we talk about wiping out the deficit, the annual debt, but we do not talk about paying down the debt. Our budget pays down $2.2 trillion in debt, and that is real important for my small children. Little 8-year-old Jim Kingston would love to live in a debt-free America one day, and I am going to do everything I can to make it happen. These are the main points of our budget, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to spend Social Security money. We want to protect and preserve it. We want to stop the raid on it. I think it is a very important proposal, and I certainly hope that the President and the Vice President will work with us. Because it is important not just for America's seniors, not just for the next election, but for the next generation.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman very diplomatically said he does not know where the President is planning to come up with this money, but it is true, it is reality, we do not have to kid ourselves, he is talking about transferring money out of the Social Security trust fund. It is going to be real hard for me to go home and tell my grandmother that, ``You know what, today you are going to have a little bit less money in your trust fund because the President wants to send it to foreigners.'' I can envision the conversation. ``Oh, you mean Americans who live in foreign countries who paid into Social Security?'' ``No, ma'am.'' ``What do you mean going overseas with my Social Security money?'' ``Well, the President wants to send it to India and Pakistan and Russia and North Korea, and all of these kinds of places, grandmother. What do you think about that?'' And she is going to be horrified. The reality is, we need not kid ourselves, what the President of the United States said today to America's seniors, we want to get the money out of the Social Security trust fund and send it overseas to foreign governments and many governments who are not always friendly to the United States, and that is a direct affront to American taxpayers.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, well, this year trick or treat for UNICEF will have a new meaning because the President just said no to a $9 million increase in UNICEF funding. So the children of America are going to have to work a little bit harder. It is important because the President also said no to a $60 million increase in child survival programs. He also, to keep the streets just as dangerous as he could, said no to a $24 million increase in the international drug programs. We keep hearing about our obligations overseas and our promises to the Middle East. I was in Israel. I spoke to Mr. Barak in a small group at a Congressional delegation in Israel and Jerusalem and also here in the Capitol. I also went to Jordan and spoke to King Abdallah. There was no discussion of you-all made this promise the Wye River is in the bag, we are spending the money. I did not hear that from the two top leaders of these countries. But I do see that, in this bill, the President said no to our increasing aid to Israel $30 million where he had cut it. We keep talking about what this money is going to do. It is going to go to good causes overseas, but any increase will come straight out of Social Security. We should reject this veto.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, take I-16 right out of Savannah, go about 20 miles west and make a left on Highway 280, go through Pembroke, go through Daisy, and approach Evans County, Georgia, and there on the left-hand side is a little, one-story greenhouse; and in there lives Ms. Edna Thompson. I am going to make up the name, but this is true. Edna Thompson lives there. She has been a widow for 17 years. She is on a fixed income. We call it Social Security. She always talks to me and worries about what is happening to my Social Security. I hear they are spending money in Kosovo. I hear they are going to increase foreign aid. I hear a lot of things about spending money in new programs. But are they taking it out of Social Security? Today I can look her in the eye and say, no, ma'am. In 1999, for the first time in modern history, Congress has not spent one nickel of her Social Security. But do not take my word for it. Today they can get this from the official Congressional Budget Office that, for 1 year, Congress has not spent one nickel of Social Security on anything but Social Security. It is reason to celebrate.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am still confused. The President said in January, let us put Social Security first. So, taking him for his word, the Republican conference says, we agree. We will reserve House Resolution 1, the first bill of the legislative session, for consideration for the President's Social Security reform package. Well, that was in January. Here we are in October. No bill, no legislation, nothing from the President on Social Security protection. Here is what we do have. He said he wanted to protect 62 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund. Republicans want to protect 100 percent. He said he is against the lockbox. The lockbox works the same way as a security deposit box in the bank works. They put the money in there and then nothing can get out. But the President is against that. Now we find out he is going to veto the foreign aid bill because he wants to spend more money but the only surplus that is left is Social Security. So I am really confused now. The President is going to veto foreign aid so he can spend at its current level, so he can spend Social Security dollars in foreign countries. It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the statement of managers notes that HIV/ AIDS is much more of a problem in Africa than perhaps any other country. It has great consequences for economic and political stability. The Morehouse School of Medicine, which is the only African American school to be started in this century, can be and should be part of the solution as we address this horrible problem of AIDS. The President of Morehouse School of Medicine is the distinguished Dr. Lewis W. Sullivan, the former Secretary of HHS. And the Senate has earmarked $5.5 million dollars in this effort. Accordingly, AID must not delay informing a partnership with Morehouse so that AID resources that focus on Africa can be maximized to their fullest extent. There exists a strong community of interests between the people of sub-Saharan Africa and the African-American citizens of our Nation. So, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in this bill additional new resources were added by the managers to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa?

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, where is it? Let me ask my Democrat and Republican friends, where is it? They know what I am talking about: H.R. 1, the President's plan to save Social Security. Right there he stood, Mr. Speaker, right there, and said, let us put Social Security first. Of course he only wanted to preserve 62 percent of it and has continuously stuck with that by trying to raid it every chance he gets, but he has not introduced a bill. This box right here, he could put it in here any time, but he has not. That was back in January, Mr. Speaker. Where is the President's plan? He goes from coast to coast bragging to America's seniors how he is going it take care of them; and yet, he has not introduced his plan to save Social Security. Instead, he has kept saying, let us spend the money. He puts pressure on Congress: Spend more money on appropriations bills. I am going to have to veto this bill; not enough money in it. Guess where he is going to get the balance, right from Social Security. That is why he is against the security box concept for Social Security, the lockbox that would keep his hands out of the till. That is why he is fighting it. Mr. President, the box is waiting. Congress is ready when you are. Go ahead and introduce your plan.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is budget time, so it is ``Mediscare'' time. We have the age-old tactics that, when one does not have the facts, start scaring people. Who is the easiest of the population to scare? The seniors, beating up on Grandma and Grandpa. That appears to be what the White House is already doing with the Republican budget by saying that the Republican budget takes money out of Social Security. I have a letter in my hand from the director of the Congressional Budget Office, the head guru. He says in short, there is nothing in our budget that takes any money out of Social Security. I will submit this for the Record. It is available for anybody who wants a copy of it. We will distribute it to our misguided liberal friends on the other side. But the fact is, let us have an honest debate. When the President vetoes the appropriations bills, and we have spent up against the budget caps, then the only question remaining is: Mr. President, do you want to spend more money? It comes out of Social Security. Is that what you want to do? At that point, Mr. President, what will you tell Grandma? Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to is as follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 30, 1999. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop the Clinton raid on Social Security funds. Just think about this. If someone was working in a business and that business had a 401(k) or a pension plan, say it was the Georgia Widget Company and your name was Peggy and you had been working there for all of these years saving up and putting money into the 401(k) and then your retirement came and the owner of the widget company said, Peggy, I am sorry, we have spent your money on widgets and on tools that we need for the production of widgets and then the new driveway out there and some new trucks last year. Well, of course, that person would have the right to sue, which is what that worker would do. The American seniors have had the same thing happen to them. After 30 years of Democrat-raiding of Social Security, they have put Social Security funds into a trust that has been taken out for roads and bridges and congressional salaries and government programs. It is time to stop that. It is time to put Social Security money in a lockbox for only Social Security use; no other use. If the President could get the liberals over there in his party in the other body to pass the lockbox legislation, which already passed the House, we could go home and tell our seniors their Social Security funds are protected from this day forward.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today's theme team is proud to present to the President of the United States the smoke and mirror award for vetoing the middle-class tax cut. The middle class in America, the President says, deserves a break. Of course, a couple of years ago, remember, he was asking these same middle class people to invest in government and yet today he refused to invest in them by letting us keep our own money. Therefore, in Savannah, Georgia, Marilyn and Robert Johnson will continue to pay the marriage tax penalty that they are having to pay ever since they were married, because this President does not want to give them relief.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, due to notifications from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that hurricane ``Floyd'' is likely to hit my district within 48 hours, I will not be able to be present and voting this evening and tomorrow. Hurricane ``Floyd'' is currently a category 4 storm and gaining strength as it approaches the Southeast coast. I will remain in my district to assist constituents and my family with pending evacuation and mitigation plans.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time. I wanted to touch base real quickly on this lawsuit a little bit, Mr. Speaker, because what the lawsuit is about is Washington, D.C.'s right to become a State, and that is something that this Congress has voted on, and the votes fell short. So now Washington, D.C. is trying to take a court route for their right, and I do support their right to go to court. But I want to remind everybody today we voted to reduce funding for something that is also very important to our counties and municipalities around the country, and that is the CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant program. Let us say, if some counties out there did not like the amount that we voted on, should they be suing us, and should we give them money to sue us for that? This matter that is pending in court has been debated on this floor in the House. It has been voted on by this floor of the House, and it was voted down. I am sorry that folks in Washington, D.C. want to take this to court. They do not like this legislative process. But that is why we have a legislative process. There are winners, and there are losers in it. On the issue of home rule, Washington, D.C. as a city grew up around the Capitol of the Nation. This was a swamp. There was the City of Georgetown, but there was not Washington, D.C. until the United States Capitol came here. Because of that, there has always been a relationship between the government and Washington in terms of who is going to run what. I believe there was not home rule for a while, and then there was home rule up until something like 1871, and then it was lost because one of the mayors 100 years ago was spending too much money on roads, and Congress took the right of home rule away. Then I think in, what, in the 1970s, it came again. Then in 1994, there were debates about taking home rule away. Because of the leadership of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and many others who said, wait, that is too harsh on this city. Let us keep home rule in place, and let us work through this control board. A lot of things, because of their position taken by these folks and their leadership, prevailed. The university, the law school, and the hospital, all of which 2 to 3 years ago were on the chopping block to be cut, but because of the autonomy of Washington, D.C., they were able to retain that. There is a relationship between the Congress and Washington, D.C. It is not always a happy marriage, but it is there. They will probably not have complete home rule for many years to come. But in the meantime, I, as a Member of Congress, cannot vote to legalize marijuana in Washington, D.C. I cannot give them that option, because what about the other cities who want to do that or some of the other proposals like needles to drug addicts? If Washington, D.C. wants that, is it not fair to give that option to all other cities across the Nation? We as a Congress have voted not to do that. Now, there are a lot of good, positive things in this bill, despite the fact that we disagree on much.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address tonight the Republican budget and the tax relief package which Americans certainly deserve and is long overdue to them and particularly in respect to the rhetorical terrorism that we seem to hear from the White House. I guess it is the fall. Everybody is back on the football field. The kids are back in school and the White House hot air machine is in full force spreading the lies which they seem to be so good about. Now here we have a budget which is a three-point budget, Mr. Speaker; and basically what it does, as a triangle, the apex of the triangle does one thing, protects Social Security and Medicare, setting aside $1.9 trillion for Social Security and Medicare protection. Unlike the President's proposal that he made in January of this year, standing right in front of where the Speaker is, saying let us put aside 62 percent of the Social Security surplus, the Republican plan puts aside 100 percent. Now, even if someone is a liberal over at the White House, they know that 100 percent is more than 62 percent, and this is good for your grandmother and my grandmother. So we have the first point, Social Security and Medicare is protected, $1.9 trillion under the Republican plan. The second corner of the triangle is to pay down the debt, $2.2 trillion to pay down the debt. This budget allows us to look one's grandmother in the eye and say we are taking care of them and also look our children in the eye and say we are taking care of their future. Now we had a $5 trillion debt. I would love to see us pay all of that off but, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the votes are not there. The political will is not there. I would love to see the money go to debt reduction, but the math in terms of getting 200 votes in the House, 51 in the Senate and the signature of the White House is just not there. So we do have some debt reduction. Now, after we have paid that portion of the debt down in installments, it triggers tax relief, not only afterwards. So we have the $2.2 trillion in debt relief. Then we get $792 billion in tax relief. The way I look at that, Mr. Speaker, if someone goes to Wal- Mart and they buy a $7 hammer, and they give the cashier $10 they expect their change. They do not expect the cashier to load their cart up with more goods and services. Yet that is what the liberals over at the White House want to do. They say the American people do not deserve their change back for their hard-earned pay, and I think that they do. This change, this tax relief, is in the form of capital gains tax relief, 20 to 18 percent; if someone is in the lower income bracket, 10 to 7 percent. Income tax relief across the board, 2.9 percent for upper income, 7 percent for lower income. Death tax relief so that if a person dies they can pass their small business or family farm on to their children so that they too can carry on the family enterprise; and then marriage tax relief. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, that we live in a society that says, if people get married they are going to pay more in taxes than if they are just living together, and yet we out of the other side of our mouth are talking about what a great institution marriage is. These are common sense, across-the-board, middle-class tax reductions, one thing the Democrats have trouble understanding. They say, yes, but the rich are going to get money out of the tax relief. Well, as my colleagues know. Hello? Who pays taxes? If you pay taxes, you are going to get tax relief; I am sorry, there is no way around it. But that seems to be the concept wasted over there at the White House. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that takes care of Social Security and Medicare first, debt relief second, and after that and only after that, tax relief for the hard-working middle-class Americans. It is a good budget. The President says he wants a budget that takes care of Social Security, Medicare, and debt relief. This is the budget for him to sign. I wish that he would sign it because do my colleagues know what, Mr. Speaker? We do not really have to be here. If the President would go ahead and say: You know what, this is a common sense budget; and I agree with my Democrat comrade and friend, Senator Bob Kerrey, the liberal senator who said this is reasonable, and I am going to support it. And if he could, we would go home, and we would not be passing a whole bunch of other new laws and regulations that are crippling American industry, American education, and school systems and hurting middle-class Americans. And that would be the greatest part. We could all go home, and I do not think there is anybody outside of Washington, D.C., who would regret Congress adjourning early. So, Mr. Speaker, with that let me just say I urge the President to get off the rhetoric, I urge the President to get into reality, and I urge him to sign this bill. But if he does not, at least sit down in good faith, and let us try to work out something because the American taxpayers deserve it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, it is politics as usual when it comes to spending our money, the money of the people of America. The Republican approach is three-fold. Number one, the Republican party wants to preserve 100 percent of the social security surplus as compared to 62 percent that the President wants to protect. Now, we do this, we put aside $1.9 trillion for social security and Medicare, and the second thing we do is we pay down the debt, $2 trillion, as seen on this chart. The third thing we do, and only after social security, Medicare, and debt reduction, we return to American people their money for overpayment on taxes. The President's attitude is somewhat epitomized in this statement: ``We could give the surplus all back to you and hope you spend it right.'' Gee, whiz, people of America, Bill Clinton can spend your money better than you can spend it. Does that not make us feel good? All I can say is, the people in America must not know how to spend money at all, judging by the responsibility exhibited over at the White House the past 2 years. Let me say this, this is Americans' money. It ought to go back to them.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the House Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY00 provides an extremely important allocation of resources in a serious effort to improve critical shortcomings affecting the readiness of our armed forces. This bill meets the budget authority and outlay limits set in the Committee's 302(b) allocation, provides a critical $15.5 billion increase over appropriations in FY99, and provides $2.8 billion above the President's request. This legislation goes a long way to address critical readiness, recruitment, retention, operational maintenance, and quality of life needs that are so important for our military. However, I am concerned about one aspect of the legislation's strategy, cutting programmed funding for the initial production of the Air Force's number one development priority, the F-22, Raptor. We expect our military to remain the world's best, head and shoulders above any potential aggressor. We demand that our armed forces reign supreme in personnel, training, professionalism, and equipment. We do not want parity with our enemies, we demand superiority. We do not want to win conflicts by attrition but by overwhelming our foes. A most critical aspect of our superiority is our ability to achieve and maintain air superiority in any conflict. Furthermore, today Americans have grown to expect to win conflicts with minimal or even no casualties. The best trained pilots in the most advanced aircraft are the great enabler in any conflict whether to protect our Navy, or to allow the introduction and free maneuver of our ground forces. Air superiority is vital. Experience in modern warfare has continued to reflect the importance of this from success in World War II to operations during Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force. The F-22 aircraft is being produced to replace the F-15 fighter and to accomplish its air superiority mission beginning in 2005. The F-15 currently represents 1960's technology and the aging fleet will average 26 years old when the F-22 is scheduled to be operational. Today's F- 15's have served our country well, but in the future our pilots will be at risk. Its capabilities today are at parity with the Russian SU-27, MIG-29 and by 2005 will be at a disadvantage facing the Russian SU-35 or the French Rafael, and the European Fighter 2000 aircraft that will be available on the world market. Additionally, the surface to air missile threat continues to advance world wide. Today the SA-10 and SA- 12 missile availability pose a threat to the F-15. Proliferation of SA- 10 and SA-12 capability has increased from four countries in 1985 to fourteen in 1995 and an estimated 22 by 2005. The F-22 will have the capability to counter the surface to air missile threat through stealth technology, supercruise capability that will significantly reduce missile engagement opportunity, maneuverability and unequaled pilot awareness. The F-22 aircraft does bear costs, $19 billion has been invested to date, but the cost and advanced technology provide significant efficiencies and long term savings. The F-22 will reduce by half the number of maintenance personnel for each aircraft. It is expected to have 30 percent reduction in direct operations and sustainment costs per squadron per year when compared to the F-15. A quicker combat turnaround time will allow higher sortie rates during a conflict. The F-22 program costs are under control and are within the Congressionally mandated cost caps for both development and production. This plane utilizes cutting edge technology to ensure our Air Force continues to maintain our nation's superiority in air combat. Based upon the status of the current F-22 program, a pause in funding the F-22 procurement requested for FY00 would put the entire program at serious risk. Contract obligations would be breached if aircraft procurement is not funded. This would result in at least a three year delay in the program, would increase costs by $6-8 billion, and exceed the caps set by Congress. The production delay could seriously affect numerous suppliers that could not afford to stop and restart production causing significant erosion of the program's industrial base. Such a pause would seriously disrupt an intricate supply system established in all but a few states. A pause or end of the F-22 program would have a very negative impact on the future of an important complementary aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF also under development is being designed as a multi-role aircraft for three services to replace the capabilities of the F-16 and A-10 fleet, with fielding goals in FY10. It is being developed to perform as an air-to ground combat aircraft to complement the air-to-air combat role of the F-22. The characteristics of these planes will differ greatly. If the F-22 program is killed, the U.S. will have a void in the capabilities required by the F-22, the action could cause great changes to JSF, or require development of a whole new kind of aircraft all of which would delay the fielding of the JSF. Additionally, the JSF leverages certain technologies from the F-22, including avionics and engines that use the F-22 as a stepping stone for advancements. Setback of the F-22 program will degrade progress on the JSF. Ultimately, this action could place our air supremacy capability in extreme danger. Finally, as the F-22 harnesses and employs superb, advanced technology, the development and testing of the aircraft does the same. Flight testing of two test aircraft has proceeded well. Avionics testing has been ongoing through three bench labs and one flying test bed, a 757 aircraft with all avionics including a full cockpit from an F-22. Advanced computer models have also enhanced the ability to hone the technical aspects of the plane. Nine aircraft are funded in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of this program. All nine aircraft will be delivered by FY01. Production aircraft that have been requested by the Air Force to be funded in FY00 will not complete production until FY03. This low rate initial production is necessary to efficiently utilize the open delivery line. Testing will be 90% complete and initial operational testing and evaluation will complete in mid-year 2003. This program minimizes risks and employs efficiency and responsible costing to meet delivery milestones. When compared with previous aircraft production such as the F-15 and F-16, the F-22 minimizes, by a large degree, the number of production aircraft during the EMD phase. In closing, the House Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY00 is a good bill that will provide relief for many aspects of our services needs. It goes far to take care of the men and women who serve in America's Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. I will vote in favor of this legislation, but with apprehension that this bill does an injustice to the number one Air Force development priority and a critical Department of Defense program that has vital implications on how we remain the undisputed air superiority and air supremacy power in the world. Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill Offered by Mr. Kingston In the ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' account (beginning at page 29, line 11 of the committee print), increase the pending amount by $630,297,000, representing an increase of $1,852,075,000 in the F-22 aircraft program and a decrease of $1,221,778,000 in other programs. In the ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'' account (beginning at page 25, line 3 of the committee print), reduce the pending amount by $387,897,000. In the ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' account (beginning at page 35, line 14 of the committee print), reduce the pending amount by $242,400,000. And amend the committee report accordingly.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we now have a surplus for the first time since 1969, and there are two reasons for this: number one, Congress has brought in the rein on spending; but number two, and more importantly, hard-working Americans have worked their tails off, and tax revenues have increased as a result of it. I believe there are three things we need to do with that surplus and there are three things that the Republican bill did do last week. Number one, protected and preserved Social Security and Medicare. This bill set aside $1.9 trillion in Social Security and Medicare and used a lockbox device. Keep in mind the President not only wanted to preserve 62 percent of Social Security, the Republican bill preserves 100 percent. The number two thing this bill does is pays down the debt. For 40 years, liberal Washington spending programs have given us a $5.4 trillion debt. This bill pays it down by over $2 trillion. And then number three, it gives Americans their refund for overcharge on the government. It gives 792 billion in tax relief, and as liberal Senator Bob Kerrey says, it is not reckless; it is not irresponsible when you are looking at the surpluses that we are. I hope that the demagoguery in Washington will stop and we can pass this very important bill for the sake of Social Security, Medicare, and the debt.