Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have a surplus now. It is the first time since 1969 that we have had a surplus. We have this for two reasons: Number one, Congress has finally slowed down the rate of growth in government. Very important concept. We are questioning bureaucrats on how they spend our money. But, number two, and most importantly, we have a surplus because the American people have worked their tails off in the last several years and they have put in 50 and 60 hours a week and the revenues to our coffers have increased tremendously. So now we have a big debate, a good debate going on, what to do with this surplus. I believe that there are three essential things that we should do, and that was what the debate last week was, on tax reduction. Number one, what we should do with this surplus is pay our Social Security debts. Protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare. The President of the United States in January stood right where you are, Mr. Speaker, and said, ``Let's protect 62 percent of the Social Security surplus.'' But the Republican Party said, ``No, Mr. President, we want to protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and not just protect it on paper but put it in a lockbox so that it cannot be used for roads and bridges and pay raises and new entitlement programs but that money will be there for your mom and your dad's retirement.'' And so, Mr. Speaker, this bill puts aside 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to the tune of $1.9 trillion, protecting and preserving Social Security and Medicare. Number two, this bill pays down the debt. For 40 years, because of irresponsible congressional spending, we have accumulated a $5.4 trillion debt. This bill takes the first serious step of paying down approximately $2 trillion of that debt by having a trigger device. The trigger device says that if you want to get a tax reduction, you have to pay down the debt. And unless the debt is paid down, then the tax reduction portion is not triggered. It is the first time that has ever been done by the House. The third thing, of course, that the bill does is it provides the American people with $792 billion of their money back for their overpayment in government. I am so sick and tired of people in Washington talking about how much the tax reduction is going to cost us. Guess what? It does not cost us anything because it is not our money, Mr. Speaker. It belongs to the American people. If you go in Wal-Mart and you buy a pair of flip-flops for $2.50 and you give the cashier $5, they do not keep your money. It is your money. But if you have a Washington bureaucrat cashier, you will never see your change. They will give you more shoes, more flip-flops, they will even charge you. Before you know it the $2.50 purchase becomes a $6 and $7 purchase. That is how ridiculous things are in this town, Mr. Speaker. It is the American people's money and we need to give it back to them. This comes in the form of a 10 percent tax reduction across the board, capital gains tax reduction, estate tax relief, relief for small businesses and farmers. The President of the United States, stickler for truth as he always has been, will come in and say, ``Oh, you're taking money away from seniors, from children, from the environment, from education.'' Well, if you are a Republican and you cross the street, the American President right now is going to accuse you of hurting seniors and children and the environment and education. It does not matter. He is a broken record. It is a formula that works for him, class warfare and scaremongering. But we are sick and tired of it. It is interesting that liberal Senator Bob Kerrey said that when you are talking about a $3 trillion surplus, an $800 billion tax reduction program is not reckless or irresponsible. That is from a well thought of, but liberal, Democratic Senator. He is saying, ``What's the big deal?'' What is the big deal, Mr. Speaker? We are talking about the size of a tax cut. We are not talking about whether to have one or not. The President has already agreed to one. Most of the liberals in Congress have agreed to one. We are only talking about the size of it. Mr. Speaker, this tax package that was voted on the other day, again three-pronged, protects and preserves Social Security to the tune of $1.9 trillion through a lockbox, and protects 100 percent of it; number two, pays down the debt $2 trillion; and, number three, and finally and only after the others have been protected, it gives tax relief. Therefore, it is a good, responsible bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for yielding me the time. Let me say that I am going to support this bill. The ranking member and the chairman of the committee have worked hard on a bill that balances quality of life, readiness, and modernization in the face of a budget shortfall in a long list of very many needs. There are three reasons that I am standing in support of including the F-22 in the final bill. And that is, number one, the threat. That has been outlined fairly well by previous speakers, but let me just put it this way: When George Washington was President, the Congress had a bill that said that our standing military would never be more than 5,000 troops; and the President at that time said that would be great, but let us also pass a bill that we cannot be invaded by any country that has more than 3,000 troops. We do want a fair fight in America. And our enemies are not cooperating. While we may pause on the F-22, they may not pause on their development of stealth fighters. We know from our classified briefings, that the threat is real. The second reason I support the F-22 is because of the slippage. If we hold back because of a very complicated purchasing system that involves over 200 contracts by the producer, it will cost us an additional $6 billion to get up and running again. It also will cost us some soft costs. For example, with the F-22, the Air Force does not need the EF-11s. But without it, they will need them. And so, we are going to have to start spending money on that again. The slippage cost is real, and again it is about $6 billion. The third reason I support the F-22 is because the Joint Strike Fighter, as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) said very articulately, is a complement to the F-22. It is not a replacement. I believe there is some other money out there. We did not spend all our money that we had appropriated in the bombing of Kosovo. Maybe we should look at going back into that supplemental bill and bringing some of this money back to make this happen. I am not sure. But I appreciate the gentleman listening to us, and I appreciate the leadership on the issue and hope we can get this done in the final version of the bill. 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 all superiority in any conflict. Furthermore, today Americans have grown to expect to win conflicts with minimal or even no casualities. 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 disadvantaged 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 millile 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 have 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 sorties rates during a conflict. The F-22 program costs are under control and are within the Congressional 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 plans 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 aicraft 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. The 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 supermacy power in the world. This amendment was offered in the Appropriations Committee by Mr. Kingston, but was withdrawn and not offered on the floor. New General Provisions Restoring F-22 Funds and Providing Advance Appropriations for Several Program Increases In the appropriate place in the Committee Print Bill, insert the following new general provision: Sec. Xxxx. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the total amounts appropriated in this Act for Titles III and IV is hereby reduced by $1,852,075,000 to reflect the deletion of the following amounts for the following programs: $208,000,000 for eight KC-135 re-enginings; $440,000,000 for eight F-15E aircraft; $564,000,000 for KC-130J aircraft; $250,000,000 for one JSTARS aircraft; $98,000,000 for five F- 16 C/D aircraft; $63,000,000 for one Operational Support Aircraft; $100,000,000 for additional AMRAAM procurement; $50,000,000 for additional JDAM procurement; $79,075,000 for B-2 upgrades; Provided, in addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in this or any other act, $1,852,075,000 is hereby appropriated to be available October 1, 2000, until expended, in the following amounts for the following programs: $208,000,000 for eight KC-135 re-enginings; $440,000,000 for eight F-15E aircraft; $564,000,000 for KC-130J aircraft; $250,000,000 for one JSTARS aircraft; $98,000,000 for five F- 16 C/D aircraft; $63,000,000 for one Operational Support Aircraft; $100,000,000 for additional AMRAAM procurement; $50,000,000 for additional JDAM procurement; $79,075,000 for B-2 upgrades: Provided further, in addition to the amounts appropriated elsewhere in title II of this Act, $1,574,981,000 is provided for F-22 procurement and $277,094,000 for F-22 Advance Procurement. Why We Need the F-22 threat Need F-22 to counter future and current surface-to-air missile (SA 10/12) threats. The F-15 cannot operate in this environment by itself 21 countries expected to possess SA 10/12's (advanced SAMS) by 2005 237 of world's 267 nations have surface to air missiles There will be a five fold increase in the number of countries with radar guided air to air missiles As many as 700 MIG-21's may be upgraded between 1995 and 2000 F-15 began service in early 1970's (almost 25 years ago) When F-22 becomes operational in FY06, the F-15 will average 26 years old When JSF becomes operational in FY10, the F-16 will be 24 years old 30-40 year old F-15's put our pilots at risk Today the F-15 is just at parity with the SU-27 and MIG-29. By 2005 the F-15 will be disadvantage to the SU-35 and the export versions of the Rafale and European Fighter 2000 Air to air missiles are proliferating and becoming more capable impact of slipping program 3 year delay in program, voids contracts, and kills program This is not a pause, it kills the production program Increase in costs breaks the contract price and the Congressional costs caps Increases Air Force costs by $6.5 billion Set back for Army's number one priority the Commanche helicopter since they have some common systems) $16 billion already invested to date Loss of industrial base to support F-22 program Upgrading the F-15 would cost about $26 million per plane f-22 F-22 replaces the F-15 for all weather air superiority and deep attack Increased capabilities: stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, avionics, weapons payload First look, first shot, first kill against multiple targets Flight tests have gone well Costs are controlled, costs are within funding caps set by Congress The F-22 will reduce by half the number of maintenance personnel for each aircraft F-22 will cost $500 million less to operate and support over 20 years than an F-15 squadron F-15 afterburner operations are limited to 5-7 minutes, F-22 can operate at supercruise for a significant period of time without afterburners 20% lower combat turnaround time for the F-22/higher sortie rate Lower deployment requirements (14 C-17s to deploy F-15 vs. 4 C-17s for F-22) jsf JSF leverages technologies from the F-22 (avionics, engines) JSF is a multi-role air to ground fighter to complement (not replace) the air-to-air role of F-22 JSF replaces the F-16 and A-10 and meets requirements for other military services Without the F-22, the requirements for JSF change and will delay JSF by several years for more information contact Congressman Kingston or Congressman Chambliss. Point Paper on HAC-D Mark to F-22 Procurement background--why the usaf needs the f-22 The 21st Century Force Structure--The Air Force's modernization strategy is built on the proper mix of ``High'' capability F-22s and ``Low'' cost Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) to achieve the dominant capability and operations tempo to support Joint Vision 2010's goal of full spectrum dominance. F-22 is the high-capability force enabler designed to accomplish the most demanding missions of air superiority and attack of high-value, highly defended targets. A combination of stealth, supercruise, integrated avionics, and larger internal air-to-air weapons payload are its primary attributes. The JSF is the low-cost majority of the force--balance of affordability and capability allows procurement of greater numbers to perform a variety of missions and sustain the required high tempo of modern warfare. JSF will rely on the F-22 for air superiority. JSF will modernize the largest part of our fleet providing an affordable replacement for the F-16 and A-10. JSF is dependent upon F-22 technologies and will complement the F-22 in the future as the F-16 complements the F-15 today. The Need for the F-22--Joint Vision 2010 requires the Air Force to achieve Air Dominance--the ability to completely control adversary's vertical battlespace. The current air superiority fighter, the F-15, is at parity today with the SU-27 and MIG-29; by IOC for F-22 in 2005, the F-15 will be at a disadvantage with the fielding of the SU-35 and export versions of the Rafale and Typhoon, and the proliferation of advanced air-to-air missiles such as the AA- 11, AA-X-12, and MICA. The development and proliferation of advanced surface-to- air missiles (SAMs) such as the SA-10 and SA-12 result in a sanctuary for the enemy because the F-15 will be unable to operate in this environment without a protracted, asset intensive, defense suppression campaign. F-22's attributes of stealth, supercruise, and integrated avionics will allow it to operate in the presence of the total threat--emerging threat aircraft, advanced SAMs, and advanced air-to-air missiles. Provides American forces the freedom from attack, freedom to maneuver and freedom to attack. the Time is Now--The current Air Force fighter modernization program is an affordable and effective solution demanded by the increasing age of our current fighter force structure. By F-22 ICO in 2005, the average age of the F-15 will be 26 years old. By JSF IOC in 2010, the average age of the F-16 will be 24 years old. F-22 is an essential investment to achieve air dominance-- the key enabler for 21st Century Combat Operations. discussion--impact of the hac-d reduction on the current f-22 program The proposed reduction of the F-22 FY00 funding has a net impact of terminating the current production program and increases total Air Force costs by $6.5 Billion (does not include costs for Service Life Extension of F-15 to accommodate 2 year slip to F-22 Initial Operational Capability). Termination of the current production program--The current F-22 production strategy to procure all 339 aircraft within the Congressional Cost cap of $39.8B Key elements of this strategy are: fixed price options for the PRTV and Lot 1; target price curve (TPC) for Lots 2-5; and multi-year contracts for lots 5-12. Impact: Termination of the Lot 1 buy voids the fixed price agreement for the PRTV/Lot 1 buy and contractually requires termination of the PRTV aircraft buy. This in turn breaks the TPC and results in a production cost increase over the Congressional cost caps. A new production strategy initiated in FY02 with an 8 aircraft buy (requires Advance Buy in FY01) and a new production profile (8, 10, 16, 24, 36) results in a production cost increase of $5.3B, which breaks the Congressionally mandated production cost cap of $39.8B. Extension of the EMD program by 15 months--The cancellation of the PRTV aircraft drives the requirement to retrofit the EMD aircraft to a production configuration for dedicated initial operational test and evaluation, which would have been accomplished by the PRTVs. An additional $500M is required for EMD to fund for Out-of- Production parts associated with these aircraft due to the lack of an active production program. Impact: With the EMD stretchout and above considerations the total cost impact to the EMD program is $1.2B, which breaks Congressionally mandated EMD cost cap of $18.8B. Delay to Initial Operating Capability (IOC)--F-22 IOC is currently scheduled for December 2005, the change to the production profile would delay IOC (stand up of the first F- 22 squadron) to Dec 2007. Delay in IOC would force the Air Force to execute an F-15 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) on one Fighter Wing (72 aircraft).

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, is it not ironic that the party who, for 40 years, ran up the national debt to the tune of $5.4 trillion is now hiding behind the national debt and wanting to reduce it as an excuse not to vote for tax reduction for working America? Is it not ironic that the party who only wanted to preserve 62 percent of the Social Security surplus is now saying that Republicans who wanted to preserve 100 percent of Social Security, now they are saying, no, we cannot vote for a tax cut? Is it not typical that the party whose President's budget cut Medicare $9 billion now is pretending to be the protector of Medicare? The fact is they want to repeat their performance of 1993 when they passed the largest tax increase in the history of America. They want to grow government. Let us just think about it this way: if one went into Wal-Mart and one bought a pair of flip-flops for $2.50, gave the cashier $5, one deserve one's change, right? But if it is a Democrat cashier, they are going to keep the money, and they are going to spend it on their friends. Give working America their money back, and quit holding it and paying it out to your Washington bureaucrat buddies.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Well, it is tax reduction time and the rhetorical terrorism is at its height, designed to scare seniors, children, teachers and the needy. We know the Washington bureaucrats are scared because any time we try to shrink the size of government, they get frightened. And frightened because we want to return more money to the people who earned it. This surplus does not exist because of the great wisdom of your party which passed the largest tax increase in history. If it did, let us pass it again. Let us give people some real relief and do another Clinton tax increase. The fact is that is what you are trying to do. This is the Joint Tax Committee review of the Democrat Rangel plan. After 10 years, this plan, ladies and gentlemen, increases taxes $3.9 billion. Talk about a Trojan horse. Go back to the drawing board, get your folks in the back room to take some smart pills, and do not try to increase taxes one more time. We know you love it, but do not try to do it. We are trying to honestly give back to people who earn the money their money back and you are trying to take another hit off of them.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, tax cuts for the rich. How often have you heard it from the Democrat party? Their big battle cry of class warfare. Well, let us look at who is the rich. As I look at the tax package, the tax reduction package, who is going to benefit? Well, you might be rich if you want to save for your children's education. You might be rich if you have two incomes in your household. You might be rich if you want to have health care insurance. You might be rich if your company or union contributes to a pension fund. You might be rich if you save for your retirement. You might be rich if you have a wedding ring in your future. You might be rich if you have saved money and want to be in a position to pass it on to your children when you die. You might be rich if you are a senior who wants to continue working after the age of 65. You might be rich if you care for a senior in your home, and you might be rich if you have a child in daycare. The tax reduction package is aimed specifically at helping people who fall into these categories. The marriage tax relief, estate tax relief, health care tax credit. All of this is designed for middle America. It is a shame that the President and the Democrat party want to bring a tax reduction debate down to class warfare.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Conference continues to work on the BEST agenda: B standing for building a strong military; E for excellence in education; S for saving Social Security and Medicare; and T for lowering taxes. We worked very hard on the military issues this year and we have a strong military. We will be passing this week the military appropriations bills that fund readiness, modernization and quality of life for our troops, including a pay raise. On education, we have passed the Educational Flexibility Act that takes power away from command-and-control Washington bureaucrats and puts it back to the teacher, puts dollars to the teachers in the classroom and lets teachers realize that it might be a little bit different teaching Johnny how to read in Georgia than it is in Maine or than it is in California. It might be a little bit different in Savannah, Georgia, than it is in Statesboro, Georgia, or Brunswick, Georgia, and it certainly is different there than it is in New York City. This Congress has recognized that difference and said, ``You know what, these teachers are good, they're competent, they're capable, they don't need busybody Washington bureaucrats telling them how to teach their classroom.'' On Social Security, the President of the United States stood where you are, Mr. Speaker, stood in January and said, ``Let's save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus and use it for Social Security.'' Mr. President, my grandmother wants 100 percent of her Social Security surplus and that because of the Republican Congress is what is going to happen and we are going to put that money, Grandma, for you in a lockbox, so that the President and his bureaucrat cronies in Washington cannot spend it on bridges and roads and other things like wars in Kosovo. We are going to save that for your own pension. And on taxes. I want to talk to you about taxes. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that just drives me crazy about these people in Washington. They always talk about this money as if it is their money. A couple of weeks ago, I was taking my daughters Betsy and Ann to Kmart because we had to do what lots of middle-class Americans do, we had to make the Kmart shopping run. We bought a bath mat, we bought an ice chest and we bought detergents and we bought a sleeping bag and we bought a new garden hoe. On the way out the door we noticed flip-flops were $2.50 each so we bought a pair of $2.50 flip-flops. The bill came to $32, Mr. Speaker, and I had two 20's in my pocket, I gave it to the cashier and said, ``Here's $40.'' Now, I overpaid $8. Did the cashier say, ``Okay, now I'm going to throw in some magazines and some bubble gums and a couple of more pairs of flip-flops until we take all your money''? No, that is not what happens. They say, you have overpaid for this merchandise, so here is your money back. This is your $8. Put it in your pocket and spend it at another store, save it, do anything you want. But in Washington, these people say, ``No, no, that's my money.'' That is what has happened. We have overpaid for government, our hard- working 60- and 70-hour-a-week workers have overpaid for their government and these people in Washington have the audacity to say it is their money. And so tomorrow we are going to have a big debate on tax reduction and you are going to hear over and over again that Washington cannot afford these tax cuts. It is the same rhetoric they said over and over again during Ronald Reagan when he passed one of the largest tax cuts in the history of this town. Eighteen million new jobs were created because people had more money to spend on goods and services, and so the economy thrived, interest rates went down, and this is a statistical fact. I do not know why people here are trying to mislead the American public. Something else happened. Now, at the time we were involved in a Cold War and this Congress, where spending originates, Mr. Speaker, did run up the deficit, and Republicans are partially to blame on that, even though it was a Democrat House. I would say Republicans certainly, Mr. Reagan signed the bill, so I want to share the blame, but I am not going to attribute it to one sector of government. But the fact is that had nothing to do with the tax cut. That had to do with the Cold War and escalation of military spending to defeat the Soviet Union which is what happened and it was done without losing lives unlike previous wars. But now we are going to also hear about how great the fiscal responsibility was of the Democrats during the Clinton tax increase in 1993 which was the largest tax increase in the history of the country. Liberals in Washington are going to tell you that is why this economy is strong today. I will ask you this question, my liberal friends. Why do we not increase taxes again? Why do we not have more government stimulus programs if it was so good? We all know the answer. The economy thrived despite the Clinton tax increase, not because of it. What we will be doing tomorrow is returning to the American public their overpayment, and that is why it is the right thing to do. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the tax reductions to the American working class tomorrow.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1691 and also for the subsequent legislation. What this legislation attempts to do is put some common sense in the murky waters of the First Amendment regarding the separation of church and state. And we can say, well it ought to be crystal clear. But that water is murky, and it will remain murky. Mr. Speaker, a couple of examples: we all remember the debate several years ago about nursing homes that receive Medicare not being able to have in their advertising in the Yellow Pages religious symbols if they have a religious, faith-based organization that supports the nursing home. If they want to use a cross in the Yellow Pages, that is a violation. The prayer-in-school issue, and this does not really affect these directly, but I am trying to prove a point about the murky water. Should kids be allowed to pray in school, nondenomination school prayer? There have been lots of cases on this, but let us look at the case of Littleton, Colorado. If a teacher were huddled in the classroom while gun shots were outside the door and in a room safely with kids and that teacher said, ``Can we bow our heads and say a prayer,'' as the shots were fired outside the door, they are not allowed to do that. Mr. Speaker, the point is there is murky water in the question of religion, prayer, and the role of the State. And what this does in a narrowly defined area, and that area which was really opened up by the Employment Division versus Smith decision in 1990, it simply tries to put some common sense into it by saying that the local laws, the laws of the State cannot interfere with religious beliefs. I think it is a very small step. It is a very carefully balanced bill. It is crafted. It is not, in terms of public prayer, a significant public religion-type bill at all. This again is just a very slight adjustment and it tries to put common sense in it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this. It is bipartisan and I hope that we can move it and get back to some of the other issues that are before Congress.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about some concerns and reservations about what we are doing here. Because I certainly, unequivocally, join 435 Members of this House in support of our Armed Forces and the great work that they have done and their families who have supported them throughout this and I support the whole chain in that respect. But I must say, I am very concerned that this could be misconstrued as an endorsement of support for our policy in Kosovo. Because I, as do so many Members of this House, oppose this war. This was the result of diplomatic ineptitude. It is bad foreign policy. The President and the leaders never have told the American people what our American peril was in Kosovo. We do know that one of the goals was to try to bring peace to that area, and yet we are going to have 50,000 ``peacekeepers'' acting as proactive police officers in that area for an unlimited amount of time. I hardly say that that is a fitting conclusion to a war and animosities that date back at least to the Field of Blackbirds in 1389. So I want to say, unequivocally, that this House Member joins many, many other House Members in saying we did not support this war and do not want to have this vote being construed as supporting the war. I do not think that the President showed great leadership, nor did most of his cabinet members, when they cannot define what the peril is, why we are in a conflict, and when the result of that conflict or that action is the evacuation of 855,000 people from the country and then another 500,000 within the country who have lost their homes, and now, after already spending $12 billion in the Balkans and another $5 billion in Kosovo itself, we are going to be spending billions more to rebuild that society, which I will not say we should run from that responsibility at all. But I do think now we are in it, and it just seems to me that this administration's whole policy in the Balkans has been a quagmire. It has been vague. It has been haphazard. I do not believe that this is an outstanding chapter in American diplomatic history whatsoever. So I do understand that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has great respect for the armed services, which we all admire and we all join him in doing. I am going to support this portion because the armed services personnel are being commended. But I do want to emphasize strongly that a large number of Members of the House on the Democratic and Republican side oppose this policy in the Balkans, oppose this war, and we have great questions about the so-called peace agreement. How long are we going to be there? When do we get out? What will be the result? Why is Russia in the process when they did not contribute to this yet they are going to have a major part in the rebuilding of Kosovo? Will this make Kosovo more western, or is it going to make them more pro-Russia? So I just wanted to air those reservations, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman's time is about to expire, so I will just close with this, that, again, under the leadership of Speaker Hastert, we are working on what we call the Best agenda. Again, the B is for the best, strongest military. E is for excellence in education. S is for saving Social Security. And T is for reducing taxes. We are making a lot of progress. This year, for the first year in many years, the appropriations bills will be passed out of the House ahead of the cycle, ahead of the calendar, and we are making a lot of progress. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado allowing me to share some of his time tonight, and I look forward to working with him in the balance of the year.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has heard the old story about the man is driving down the road and sees a pig, and three of the pig's legs are wrapped up in bandages. Actually, he has three wooden legs. He says, what is the story about this pig. He says, oh, that pig is a magic pig. It has really done a lot. He said, one time the family was burning, the House was burning, and that pig ran in and pulled us all out of bed and saved the entire family. Another time, my son was drowning, that pig dove in the lake, swam out there and picked him up and kept him from drowning and pulled him back from shore. On another occasion, my little girl was in an automobile accident, and the car was burning, and the pig leaped through the window and pulled her out and saved her. The guy from the city said, well, that is amazing. That is a remarkable pig. But tell me, what about the bandages. He said, well, it is obvious. You do not eat a pig like that all at once. That is what the government is doing to the American entrepreneur, the American small business person, and the hard-working taxpayer in general, just grinding them down. Some statistics that I wanted to say, the Census Bureau says that the average household now pays $9,445 in Federal income taxes, which is twice as much as it was in 1985. The typical American family pays more in taxes than we spend on food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. It is very similar to the story. You just do not eat a pig like that all at once, you grind them down.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Colorado intimate with bank robbers? How does he know these fine things?

Mr. KINGSTON. So one are overpaying one's taxes by $500 more a year if one is an average family than we need in this room, in this Chamber, in this Congress to operate one's government with.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we do not see any signs of it in the rhetoric that we are going to stick with this bipartisan agreement that everybody signed off on. But to get back in terms of tax reduction, one of the big problems, and the gentleman from Colorado knows the expression, I think it is attributed to Jesse James, but I am not sure, ``Why do you rob banks?'' ``Because that is where the money is.'' Why do the rich get tax reductions? Because they are the ones paying the taxes. Now, I know that is real hard to accept when one builds political careers on class warfare and class division, as many politicians do. But the reality is, if one wants to give tax relief, one has got to give it also to the people who are paying the big taxes. As I pointed out before, households earning more than $50,000 are paying 82 percent of the income taxes right now. We have got to let them have some tax relief. But what is the benefit of that? Job creation. The entrepreneurs that the gentleman is talking about. Ted Turner in Georgia makes a tremendous amount of money. Do my colleagues know what, in schools all over America, they should be teaching kids how they want to be an entrepreneur, they want to grow, they want to have capitalization, they want to be independent. Now, not everybody is going to do that, be able to do that, and we want to have all kinds of jobs and options for people. We want to help those who never will be independent. But the reality is, let us do not punish Ted Turner when he gets to be where he is. I mean, has it been good for the state of Georgia and Atlanta for CNN to be located there? Absolutely yes. Is it good, all those jobs? Yes. Are those people also, many of them who work for him, wealthy? Yes. Is that good? Yes. They buy lots of shoes and cars and stereos. They spend all kinds of money which creates jobs in Atlanta, Georgia. But we go at this thing with the myopic that they are rich. It can only be attributed to luck, not hard work and enterprise. Therefore, there is an injustice about it, and we have got to punish them for being rich. We hear that over and over again. But in this time of the surplus and the surplus, not all of it is coming from Social Security, but Americans are paying about $500 a year more than the government needs to operate. Now, I do not know anybody who likes overpaying a bill. I do not care who it is, if it is Bill Gates or the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), nobody like overpaying.

Mr. KINGSTON. The odd part is, and just in a personal home, it is fun to buy a new boat or a new car. I have had one new car in my life, and I have never owned a new boat, so I really do not know the feeling, but I know it is a lot more fun to buy maybe a new TV or a new stereo than it is to buy a new drier or to get a new set of tires for your car. In politics it is the same way, it is far more glamorous and sexy to go out and create a new government arts program or a new program for some special interest group that is going to help a limited number of people but it is going to sound real good to all, and we rush out and do that rather than pay down the debt. With a $5.4 trillion debt, I strongly urge, and I know the gentleman has been fighting for it, that we include not just debt service but debt payment in every budget that we have. We should have, and last year our colleague, Mark Neumann, advocated I think it was a 25-year budget debt pay-down that would have paid off the national debt I think by the year 2025, or maybe even sooner than that. That should be the center of the debate, not what are we going to do with this new money. That debt right now, we do pay interest on it, and that interest I think is something like I believe $500 per person, so a family of four pays about $2,000 a year in taxes servicing the national debt. That is $2,000 a year that could be used for college tuition, for groceries, for a vacation, for a couple of months of house payments. That money is absolutely gone to the bondholders. It does not buy better education, better health care, better national security, it is just gone.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I only remember Shakespeare and Winston Churchill, so the gentleman can correct me any time on bank robbers.

Mr. KINGSTON. There is a double-edged sword to bragging about the surplus. Number one, when we go out and talk about the surplus, we feel good politically because we say, look, some of our policies have worked, and for the first time since 1969 when Woodstock was held at Yasgur's farm, the budget now is balanced, or it is not in deficit. There is still this huge Federal debt, but just the annual spending is not a deficit. So there is a political punch to Democrats and Republicans about it. But the down side is that we are also sending a signal out to the special interest groups that, hey, there is plenty of money here, come and get it, and wink wink, nobody will mind if we break our spending caps, the bipartisan budget agreement of 1997, because we have new money, and no one likes new money better than Washington's special interest groups. I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, but it is not unique to us at all. Every single day a new group comes up and asks us to break that spending cap, that 1997 agreement. There are legitimate concerns. It is not just coming up with frivolous things, it is just that hey, we have legitimate concerns, and do we really have to go back and do the hard work of reinventing government or reinventing the status quo and figure out a better way to build a mousetrap? Can't you just give us more money this year? We hear it from health care, from education, from all kind of government bureaucracies. I am very, very concerned that that anticipated surplus is not going to be as large as we want it to be because we are going to use it as an excuse to relax our austerity.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this about that surplus that people often are missing in Washington. That surplus is projected on unrealistic spending restraints. We can say, we are going to have this surplus, but that is making a huge, a huge assumption that we are going to continue on a very moderate spending path which the gentleman and I know every day a new special interest group comes to us and says, break these spending caps, spend more than projected. To me, that is one thing that is wrong with the surplus. The other thing is, as the gentleman has already pointed out, it makes a big assumption that the economy is going to continue to roll along at the current rate.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think it has worked for welfare reform, and we need to, I think, be bold in our initiatives with social security, with Medicare, with tax relief, and all of our other issues that we are dealing with in this Congress. The agenda, as the gentleman knows, that we are working on under the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) is the BEST agenda. B is for building a strong military, one that can fight a war on two fronts, defend our country, one that is ready and modernized and has a good quality of life for the soldiers; E, E is for education, local control, excellence in education; S is for saving social security; and T is for lowering taxes through spending reductions and through revenue that does not go to social security. One of the interesting things on the tax relief is that right now Federal taxes currently consume 21 percent of America's gross domestic product, the highest percentage in the history of our country. Last year tax revenues grew by about 9 percent, and the average American now works 129 days in order to pay off their total tax bill. This is an all-time high. When the gentleman and I were raised, our parents, say in the fifties, paid 5 percent Federal income tax on average. In the 1970s it was 16 percent. Today it is 25 percent Federal income taxes. What is really telling to me is that individuals and families who are earning $50,000 a year pay about 82 percent of the total Federal income tax revenue. Let me repeat that. Individuals and families earning $50,000, and I suspect that would probably be about 90 percent of the people who watch C-Span, they are paying 82 percent of the total income revenue, income tax revenues to the Federal government. That is a huge disproportionate tax burden.

Mr. KINGSTON. Which incidentally is now temporary aid to needy families.

Mr. KINGSTON. This particular president has been very wise in appealing to the population of the country. He talks about less Washington power and welfare reform, even though he vetoed the bill twice. He talks about more control of education locally. Now, unfortunately, we know, after 7 years that he does not always do what he says he is going to do, but maybe all politicians are that way, at least a little bit. But it is interesting that members of his party are often out of step with what he is in fact saying himself. In a case in point, in social security, we had a long debate about the lockbox concept, and the concept of a lockbox is so that the Federal government would quit mixing social security funds for peoples' retirement with operating expenses to run government agencies. We passed that after a long debate. There were a lot of procedural tactics to keep the bill off the floor, but once it got on the floor it was passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. It went to the Senate, which up until this week has not moved on the bill and had no plans to move on it until the President finally came around and said it. But it is that fear, the fear-mongering that we hear over and over again. It is the same people saying the same irresponsible things to scare America's educators, America's children, America's seniors, the environment, and whatever. It is just a fear- mongering tactic. Somehow, once we get through there, it is not as bad as they thought, for some reason.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think it could make a tremendous difference.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think that the question also on the subject of money is, do we want the dollars that we earn, that we work hard 40, 50, 60 hours a week for, do we want that money, those tax dollars, that portion of our income, to go to a bureaucrat in Washington or do we want it to go to a teacher in a classroom? One of the things we have been pushing are more dollars to the classroom, not tripling the bureaucracy in Washington who is micromanaging our school system, and I think that is important. I think the local flexibility is the key, though. In Colorado, the gentleman certainly had the big tragedy in Littleton that we are all aggrieved about, but we need to ask ourselves, maybe Washington is, in fact, part of the problem. Maybe pushing large, impersonal schools, where the teachers do not know the students as well, maybe the teachers are afraid to question kids who are acting suspicious or odd or peculiar because they are afraid of being sued themselves, and this kind of atmosphere really has been fostered by this large centralized government that has grown in the last 10 years in our country. If people could run their own communities, their own schools and their own lives, I think we would have a much better society. It is interesting, while this administration rushes out after the Littleton tragedy to pass more gun control laws, they have completely ignored the fact that last year there were only 8 prosecutions for possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone, and only 8 prosecutions for possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile, and 6 prosecutions for the transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile. As the gentleman knows, in Littleton 23 existing gun control laws were broken. We have all of these on the books, but this administration is not prosecuting. What a difference it would make if they would prosecute. We do not know how it would have affected Littleton, but we do know that there are a lot of laws on the books that this administration, this Justice Department, has chosen not to enforce.

Mr. KINGSTON. In the testimony of the people, here is a bus driver in Milwaukee, when welfare reform first started there were a lot of complaints; people were afraid how they would fit in. Everything was new and different, but now many people have gotten into it and the morale and self-esteem has been boosted. We can tell they feel good. Most of the people are happy, too. Look into their eyes. They are happy. The eyes tell no lies. Here is a former welfare mother: I could have succeeded long ago but I had kids and I was an over protective mother. I did take advantage of the welfare system, but now we are not living month-to-month running out of food. I earn $11.49 an hour. I am still in poverty but I know it is not going to last forever. Just a total turnaround. Here is an article from the New York Times, July 27, 1998: With caseloads falling at a startling pace for minorities as well as whites, taxpayers seem well satisfied with the new ethos of time limits and work demands, and yet here again going back to 1995 here was a quote from one of our colleagues, they are coming for the sick, the elderly, the disabled. I say to my colleagues, we have the ability, the capacity, the power to stop this onslaught. Another one said that welfare reform was like Nazi Germany. So often we in our society seem to work ourselves up into a froth; fear of the unknown. What we need to do is to have a little more self- confidence and self-reliance. I love the story from the gentleman about this educator also. We have passed in this Congress, under Speaker Hastert, the Educational Flexibility Act, which has already passed the Senate and signed by the President, but the ed-flex bill gives local school systems more control, less Washington micromanagement, less bureaucracy breathing down their necks. Now, even though that is successful, we are starting it and most school systems say, yes, we want to run our show locally, we are trying to go a little bit further and do something called Straight A. What the Straight A program calls for is a charter between individual States and the Federal Government, and basically the Federal Government says that if the States meet certain outcomes and have high results, then we will free them from certain Federal regulations. My school boards in the 18 counties that I represent in southeast Georgia, they are ready for that. They know they have the ability to educate children better in Georgia than Washington can educate Georgia children. So they are confident about it. I am sure in Colorado, and I visited the gentleman's people, they are full of that good old western pride that made our country so strong and they are as independent as anybody. I am sure they are going to be delighted to get into this Straight As program.

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to point out on the subject of welfare reform just how well our country has done since the welfare reform. Approximately 42 percent of the people who were on welfare in 1994 are off welfare now. We kind of take it for granted, well, welfare reform is working, but if we go back and we look at the struggle we had getting common sense welfare reform that was compassionate in that it wanted to help people, not push anybody out the door, not cut off anybody's insurance benefit or transportation or housing, yet at the same time say if you are able to work, you ought to be required to work. Yet despite that, the President vetoed the bill twice. The minority leader, Dick Gephardt, said this on the floor of the House in March 1995: ``A Republican welfare bill will throw millions of children out on the street without doing anything to move people from welfare to work.'' The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) said on July 17, 1996, it grieves me to be here this evening to see the end of a period of almost 60 years in which this country's belief in its responsibility to the poor is going to be shattered. This is not reform. This is destruction of the basic guarantees of our democracy. Here is Representative Sam Gibbons on the floor, March 21, 1995: If Attilla the Hun were alive today and elected to Congress, he would be delighted with this bill that is here before us, and proud to cast his vote for H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. It is the most callous, cold-hearted, just listen to this rhetoric, the most callous, cold-hearted and mean-spirited attack on this country that I have ever seen in my life; just fighting that kind of irresponsible rhetoric to the rolls decreasing that were on welfare, people working, people feeling good about themselves, the teen pregnancy rates going down, the crime rates going down; people like this woman who are back in the education system or back in the workforce feeling good, happy, independent, no longer shackled by this government system which encourages dependence.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will stop there.