Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I have a letter that somewhat ties into this, and I wanted to bring it up. It is from Mr. Jones Taylor of Saint Simons Island, Georgia, and he just says, paraphrasing here, that ``I was disappointed in the Republican lack of agenda during 1998. Are you guys going to do that again or what is your agenda?'' I can say very easily what my agenda is, and I regret that I have not been here the whole time, so my colleagues may have discussed it, but I call it the BEST military, health care and agriculture: ``B'' for balancing the budget and paying down the debt; ``E'' for excellence in education; ``S'' for saving Social Security; ``T'' for lowering taxes. A strong military, a health care system that is affordable and accessible and a safe and abundant food supply. Now, in that context, the gentleman mentioned stimulating the economy. One of the great ways to do that, of course, is to pay down the debt. We pay down the debt and then the big bear, the big monster in the interest market, in the borrowing market, the Federal Government, takes a smaller percentage of the interest out there. And that is a great way to stimulate the economy. And if we do have a strong economy, revenues to the Federal Government go up and we will have a lot of money for expanding and strengthening our military, to increase the pay for our hard working soldiers, and, of course, to give the teachers in the classroom the educational funds that they need, and to shore up Social Security and Medicare. BEST military, health care and agriculture. That is a very solid agenda. I know in each area of the country there are different things that we can emphasize. Agriculture in Colorado will be a little different than agriculture in Georgia, but the fundamentals of having a safe and abundant food supply is just as important in Colorado or Arizona as it is in Georgia.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think we get some of the same letters. I have a letter from a woman in Savannah, Georgia. ``Dear Mr. Kingston, I recently heard you say how much taxes have increased since the 1950s. Can you give me those statistics again? I am a homemaker in Savannah, Georgia, with four children and would greatly appreciate the ability of our family to keep more of its hard-earned money. Signed, Elizabeth Morris.'' The income tax burden in the 1950s, as the gentleman from Arizona knows well, being on the Committee on Ways and Means, was 5 percent. In the 1970s when we were growing up, most of us in this room, it was 16 percent. Today it is 24 percent. That is just the income tax. That is not talking about the property taxes and all the other incurred taxes that our constituents and hard- working middle-class people have to pay. But the reality is the higher our tax burden, the less time we have to spend with our family, with our children imparting values, teaching them the work ethic, teaching them right from wrong, because that second income in the family often is going to pay for Uncle Sam and our excesses.

Mr. KINGSTON. Following up on the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), it is amazing that the President would say that the hard-working people who earn the money cannot spend it as well as some of the people here in Washington, maybe including the four of us. But I can say one thing. I believe people can spend their money better than we can spend their money. The tax cut that you alluded to last year, it was an $18 billion tax cut for one year; $18 billion out of a $1.7 trillion budget. It was just a slither of a slither in this huge $1.7 trillion pot, and it was killed by the Senate. Now, the Senate and the White House ganged up on the House to kill the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act, and I think that it is ridiculous to have that kind of obstruction to doing something that is common sense for the tax system. I hope this year that if we pass it that the other body will find their senses and quit siding with the liberal White House on everything and act like conservatives and pass tax reductions.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what is it that the President wants to do with 38 percent of the Social Security funds? There is a surplus in Social Security. The President is supporting taking 38 percent of that money and spending it on non-Social Security programs. One of those programs is to expand AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is a program that pays a lot of little yuppie college kids to do volunteer work and get paid for the volunteer work. They were doing it for free. The President, if an upper middle class family, the President is going to pay them. Might be a good program if they are a Democrat. I do not know. It does not make much sense to me in the real world. But I do not want my grandmother's retirement money going into that, and the President is going to say, ``I want 38 percent of your Social Security money, grandmother, and we're going to spend it on other programs.'' That is wrong, Mr. President, and I hope the Democrats will join me in saying let us preserve and protect Social Security and only use the money for Social Security.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, by Washington definition, we have a budget surplus, only by Washington definition. Because what we have done is mix Social Security, our retirement, in with operating expenses. No business in America could do that. The President, instead of wanting to put 100 percent of the surplus back where it belongs into the Social Security retirement account, he wants to spend 32 percent of it on other programs, new programs. One of them, for example, is to expand AmeriCorps. You may not be familiar with that. That is the one where they pay volunteers, teenagers, to do work that they were doing for free. The Clinton administration now pays them and calls it AmeriCorps. I think we should preserve Social Security. We should protect it. We should put 100 percent of the surplus back where it belongs, into Social Security, not into teenage volunteer payment programs. That is part of the whacky fringe left agenda and, Mr. President, my grandmother says no.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, so often we hear about tax cuts for the rich, and here is an example of one of the taxes that the opponents said was for the rich, and this is a $400 this year, $500 next year per child tax credit for families that make under $110,000 a year. Seventy- eight percent of the families who will benefit from this tax credit have a household income of less than $75,000 a year. Take the case of Mr. and Mrs. William Franklin of Brooklyn, Georgia. They just had a new son named Sean. They have to go out and buy a car seat, which the kid will immediately throw up on. They have to go out and buy shoes, which he will immediately lose one of. They have to go out and buy a walker, which he will try to roll down the steps so they will have to put a block in front of that little accordion door. They have to buy a Johnny Jump-Up to develop his legs. They have to go out and buy a blender to smash peas with, or they can pay for the more expensive; just get Gerber to do it for them. You have to do all of this if you have a child because raising children is very, very expensive. I know. I have four kids. They are wonderful, but it is proper for the government to give a $500 per child tax credit. It was passed by the Republicans last year. It is not some boondoggle for the rich, as the Democrats would have us believe.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, what we are trying to do is find the balance to protect and preserve Medicare, not for the next election, but on a bipartisan basis for the next generation.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about what the Republican agenda is this year. We have been saying BEST military. B for balancing in the budget, paying down the debt, responsible spending; E for excellence in education; S for saving Social Security; T for lowering taxes and having a strong military presence that we need in the world today. I have with me a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) who has worked so long on protecting Medicare and working for lowering taxes, and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), one of our distinguished freshman Members, and we were just going to talk about some of the things we hope to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the other gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is very important for us to remember, Mr. Speaker, that that surplus largely comes from Social Security, and what we want to do is protect Social Security, pay down the debt and then look at tax reduction for the middle class, because there is so much waste and duplication of government.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about the Republican agenda for this year, and that agenda is called Best Schools and Military and Agriculture, and ``BEST'' in this case stands for balancing the budget, ``E'' is for education, ``S'' is for saving Social Security, ``T'' is for lowering taxes and, of course, having the best military and agriculture. We want to balance the budget, but first we believe that Social Security, that part of the surplus needs to be firewalled and protected, not masked in with the rest of the general operating expenses. We believe Social Security should be a freestanding account. That lowers the amount of the surplus, and then that amount of the surplus should be divided out between lowering down the debt and tax reductions. Now, Mr. Speaker, think about this: If you have a credit card and each month you run up a big deficit, and one month you do not, does that mean you are excused from all the months of debt that you accumulated? Of course not. You have got to go back and pay the debt. And I do not believe the President is being responsible when he does not mention paying down the debt as part of his agenda. We have got to pay down the $5.4 trillion debt. In education we believe in local control, we believe in sending the dollars back to the teacher in the classroom, not sending more dollars to the Washington bureaucracy so you can have more Washington bureaucrats telling local school boards how to teach Johnny how to read. On saving the Social Security: Number 1, firewall it. Make sure that that Social Security surplus is designated for its intended purposes and not used for roads and bridges. And on tax reductions we believe that the middle class is working too hard to earn their money and that we are wasting too much of it. I believe that it is important for us to have a good government present, I believe we have to fund a lot of essential programs, but what the taxpayers who are working 50 and 60 hours a week resent, and rightfully so, is the duplication and waste in government, and we have got to cut down some of the absurdities in our government. And on the military, we have to have the strongest Army in the world. America has to be the defender of freedom and democracy around the globe. Unfortunately we did say, okay, let us be the policemen of the world; it is just the way it is. We need to have a military that has modern equipment, we need to have a military that is ready, and we need to have quality of life for our soldiers. We lose lots and lots of soldiers every year because they can get better jobs at higher pay and they do not have to worry about being deployed all over the globe the way this administration seems to deploy people. This administration's approach to foreign policy is let us deploy American troops and leave them there permanently. If we are going to commit American troops to an area, let us go for an objective, let us have a time frame, let us have a plan for lasting peace and stability once we leave, but let us leave. And then finally on agriculture, America needs to have support of an abundant and lasting food supply. We have one of the greatest agricultural economies in the world. America has only spent 11 cents of the dollar that they earn on food and on groceries, and yet we forget the American farmer. We need to have crop insurance reform, we need to look at some of the unfair trade practices of our foreign importers, and we need to do everything we can to unshackle the farmer from some of the unnecessary regulations that they are operating under. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield the floor to my friend and colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) who wants to talk about the surplus.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, the Republican Party has a very good agenda, it is called BEST Schools and Military: B for balancing the budget, paying down the debt; E for excellence in education; S for saving Social Security; and T for lowering taxes, with the strongest military in the world. We want to work with the President. I was encouraged with his State of the Union speech. But when the President starts getting obligations to the whacky fringe left, I get scared, because it scares my middle class voting constituency back home. Yesterday the President said something very curious. He said we could give the budget surplus back to you and hope that you spend it right. Who is he? Who are we to tell the American people we do not trust you with your money? This is the whacky fringe left at its best. I believe the American taxpayers, the hard working, middle class moms and dads throughout the country, can spend their money quite well, without a bunch of busybody Washington bureaucrats telling them ``We are smarter than you because we are elected and we are going to spend your money.'' I disagree with the President. I think the American people can spend their money better than Congress in many cases.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me clear up a misconception of the previous speaker about the situation internationally. May 18, 1972, when over 62,000 troops were on the ground in Vietnam, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, introduced House Resolution 989 calling for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America. Now let me say this. As I have listened to this debate and listened to both parties, there is at least an emerging consensus that lies have been made, laws were broken and that the rule of law was undermined and subverted. The question diverges on the matter of consequences; is this impeachable? Some want censure, but the only constitutional remedy to the House is impeachment. Should the Senate decide, they may be able to censure. They have that option because only the Senate can decide on punishment; the House does not have that option. Our duty is to accuse, not to punish. But since Democrats and Republicans have agreed that lies were made, is it a high crime or a misdemeanor? Lying under oath on a material matter is perjury, and, under these circumstances, a felony. It has been serious enough that 700 people under the Clinton-Reno Justice Department have been tried and convicted of it; 115 are, in fact, in jail today. What would happen to the court system if this were not the case? Justice must be applied to all equally regardless of popularity, party or position. I sadly must support these articles. After months of debate, a review of the evidence, and careful consideration of the bipartisan hearings, I have decided to support all four Articles of Impeachment. Not to do so would send a message to every court and every trial in America that truth is relative, even optional. In short, America is a nation of laws and, as such, the law must apply equally to all people, regardless of position. Throughout this debate, the first question that must be considered is, what are the facts? Based on 60,000 pages of testimony, affidavits, and tapes taken under oath, honest people regardless of party, should be able to determine if laws were broken. Here are the facts with respect to the Articles of Impeachment which were reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on December 16, 1998: Article I--Grand Jury Perjury Article I charges that the President told a series of calculated lies under oath, after swearing to tell the truth, before a federal grand jury that was investigating his alleged misconduct. On August 17, 1998, seven months after being deposed in the Jones vs. Clinton case, the President swore to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury. Before the grand jury: The President swore that he did not want Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not allow his attorney to refer to an affidavit before the judge in the Jones vs. Clinton case that the President knew to be false. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not believe Monica Lewisky's affidavit was false. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he was trying to determine whether his ``recollection was right,'' and he was ``trying to get the facts down'' and ``understand what the facts were'' when he recited to Betty Currie a false account of his interactions with Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his deposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not talk to Betty Currie, his secretary, about the retrieval of gifts he had previously given to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he told the truth about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to his aides who he knew would likely be called to testify before the grand jury. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The evidence indicates that he lied, even according to his own interpretation of the Jones vs. Clinton court's definition of the term ``sexual relations.'' Article II--Civil Perjury Artlce II charges that the President lied under oath, after swearing to tell the truth, in answers to written questions asked in the Jones vs. Clinton case, in order to thwart that federal civil judicial proceeding. On December 23, 1997, the President signed an affidavit in which he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answers to written questions asked in the Jones vs. Clinton case. Such questions are permissible under current law in civil rights lawsuits in order for the court and the parties to ascertain the true facts of a case. In those answers: The President swore that he had not had sexual relations with any federal employees. The facts show this is not true. The President also swore that he had not proposed nor sought to have sexual relations with any federal employees. The facts show this is not true. The President told a series of calculated lies under oath, after swearing to tell the truth, in a deposition given in the Jones vs. Clinton case, in order to thwart that federal civil judicial proceeding. On January 17, 1998, the President swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given in the Jones vs. Clinton case. In that deposition: The President swore that he was ``not sure'' whether he had ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not know whether Monica Lewinsky has been served a subpoena to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he last saw her in December 1997. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that the contents of an affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky in the Jones vs. Clinton case, in which she denied they had a sexual relationship, were ``absolutely true.'' The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not know that his personal friend, Vernon Jordan, had met with Monica Lewinsky, a federal employee and subordinate, and a witness in the Jones vs. Clinton case in which the President was named defendant, and talked about the case. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he could not recall giving gifts to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he could not recall ever being in the Oval Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky except perhaps when she was delivering pizza. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that Monica Lewinsky gave him gifts ``once or twice.'' The facts show this is not true. The President swore that the last time he spoke to Monica Lewinsky was when she stopped by before Christmas 1997 to see Betty Currie or at a Christmas party. The fact show this is not true. The President swore that he did not have an extramarital affair or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. article III--Obstruction of Justice Article III charges that the President engaged in a pattern of obstruction while the Jones vs. Clinton case was pending, and while a federal criminal investigation into his alleged misconduct was pending, in order to thwart those proceedings. The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn affidavit that he knew would be false in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called personally to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The President related to Betty Currie, a potential witness in the Jones vs. Clinton case, a false account of events relevant to testimony she might provide in the case. The President told lies to While House aides who he knew would likely be called as witnesses before the grand jury investigating his misconduct which these officials repeated to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false information. The President intensified an effort to provide job assistance to Monica Lewinsky, and succeeded in his efforts, at a time when her truthful testimony in the Jones vs. Clinton case would have been harmful to him. The President engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The President, at his deposition, allowed his attorney to make a false representation to a federal judge in order to prevent questioning about Monica Lewinsky. article iv--abuse of power Article IV charges that the President, in his constitutional role as President of the United States, lied under oath, after swearing to tell the truth, in answers to written requests for admission asked in the impeachment inquiry, assuming to himself powers reserved to the House of Representatives, in order to thwart that constitutional proceeding. On November 27, 1997, the President signed an affidavit in which he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answers to written requests for admission issued as part of the impeachment inquiry in order to ascertain the true facts regarding the President's conduct. In those answers: The President swore that he had no specific recollections that he told Monica Lewinsky on the same day he told her she was a witness in the Jones vs. Clinton case that she could say to anyone inquiring about their relationship that her visits to the Oval Office were for the purpose of visiting with Betty Currie or delivering papers to the President. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not give perjurious, false and misleading testimony under oath when he stated during his deposition that he did not know if Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in the Jones vs. Clinton case. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not have a discussion with Monica Lewinsky at the White House regarding gifts he had given to her that were subpoenaed in the case of Jones vs. Clinton. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not discuss with Betty Currie gifts previously given by him to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not request, instruct, suggest to or otherwise discuss with Betty Currie that she take possession of gifts he had previously given to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not have knowledge that any facts or assertions contained in the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky in the Jones vs. Clinton case were false. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his deposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he stated that he did not recall giving gifts to Monica Lewinsky. The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not give false testimony in his deposition in the Jones vs. Clinton case when he responded ``once or twice'' to the question ``has Monica Lewinsky ever given you any gifts?'' The facts show this is not true. The President swore that he did not attempt to influence the testimony of Betty Currie. The facts show this is not true. it is apparent that the independent Counsel and Republican Members of the House Judiciary Committee concluded the President perjured himself, but what have the some of the Democrats said? House Judiciary Committee Democrats: Rep. Charles Schumer: ``To me, it is clear that the President lied when he testified before the grand jury.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Oct. 5, 1998. Rep. Robert Wexler: ``The President did not tell the truth. He lied under oath. That's something we have to deal with...His actions are indefensible.'' Washington Post; September 15, 1998. Rep. Barney Frank: ``I personally believe that the President testified falsely when he said he could not remember being alone with Miss Lewinsky.'' The San Francisco Chronicle; August 17, 1998. Rep. Howard Berman: ``Even if one concludes the President's testimony is not truthful--which I have--that's not grounds for impeachment. I think the best way for the country to move beyond this sad affair is for Congress to have some sort of formal declaration of disapproval of the President's conduct. I think that is clear. There needs to be some public consequence for the President's despicable behavior.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing; December 11, 1998. White House Counsels: Gregory Craig, Special Counsel to the President: ``I am willing to concede that, in the Jones deposition, the President's testimony was evasive, incomplete, misleading even maddening, but it was not perjury.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing; December 8, 1998. Charles F.C. Ruff, Office of the White House Counsel: ``I had no doubt that he walked up to a line that he thought he understood. Reasonable people--and you may be--have reached that conclusion--could determine that he crossed over that line, and what for him was truthful but misleading, or nonresponsive and misleading, or evasive, was in fact, false.'' House Judiciary Committee Hearing, December 9, 1998. one can conclude there is at least some agreement that the President provided false information before the grand jury. Thus, laws were broken. Are these offenses impeachable? Some critics argue that perjury about sex in a civil case is trivial and not worth pursuing. In fact, prosecuting perjury vindicates the rule of law. A judicial system is in order, because it is fair and civil to settle disputes through judicial means. Perjury is a crime, because a judicial system can only succeed if citizens are required to tell the truth in judicial proceedings. If citizens are allowed to lie with impunity, the system cannot reach just results and it descends into chaos. Some say that people lie under oath all the time and are not prosecuted. To some extent, that is true, but consider how much worse the situation would be if there were no threat of a perjury prosecution. What does the Constitution say? The Constitution states, ``The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' What constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?'' The Library of Congress defines this clause as the following: Treason is defined in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 as follows: ``Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.'' It is also defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2381. Bribery is not defined constitutionally, but the term appears in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201. ``High crimes and misdemeanors,'' are not defined in the Constitution or by statute. U.S. precedents suggest that certain actions that are not crimes may be impeachable. Some interpreters of the impeachment clause place great importance on the words ``other'' and ``high'' when reading the phrase ``or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They suggest that ``other'' means that the crimes and misdemeanors contemplated by the Framers must be of similar magnitude to treason or bribery. They also suggest that ``high'' modifies both ``crimes'' and misdemeanors,'' meaning that ordinary crimes and misdemeanors are not necessarily impeachable offenses. What do the scholars think? Eminent constitutional scholars testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the meaning of impeachment, the impeachment standard as applied throughout American history, and what the Founders said about impeachment when the issue was debated in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University testified that criminal interference in the legal process was an obvious ground for impeachment. Indeed, Professor Presser argued that failure by the President to live up to the standards of honesty, virtue, and honor thought necessary for the office was precisely what the Founder intended the impeachment provision of the Constitution. When a President uses his office for personal rather than public ends, he has betrayed his constitutional obligations to the Nation. Other scholar made arguments before the committee supporting this view. Professor John McGinnis of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law pointed out that this matter is not about the President's private life. It is about someone else's rights, rights which the President is sworn to protect. It is about a private citizen's civil rights and an effort to corruptly influence that citizen's due process rights. In the United States, civil rights, the right to a fair trail, and equity before the bar of justice are cherished rights, and the last person in the Republic we should accept as a violator of them is the man charged with enforcing them. Perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil case are a threat to the civil rights of every citizen, especially when that citizen if confronted with a vast apparatus of government power What is the Supreme Court's view? In this constitutional process of securing a witness's testimony, perjury simply has no place whatsoever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restrains against the type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is--and the solemnity of the oath--cannot ensure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties, in no other way can criminal conduct be flushed in the open where the law can deal with it. Similarly, our cases have consistently--indeed without exception-allowed sanctions for false statement or perjury; they have done so even in instances where the perjurer complained that the government exceeded its constitutional powers making the inquiry--United States vs. Mandurano. 425

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Spence for yielding me this time and also Ranking Member Skelton for bringing this to the floor along with Speaker Livingston. I think it is very timely and important that at this day we stop and pause in a bipartisan, united fashion and support our troops. For all Americans, we are united against Saddam Hussein but for those folks that I represent in Hinesville, Georgia, many of their friends and neighbors will be packing and saying good-bye to loved ones as members of the Third Infantry Division start to deploy. We do not know how long they will be there. We do not know how many. But we think it is very important that they know, those of us in southeast Georgia who love Fort Stewart and General Riley and all the fighting men and women that we support them and we want to get them home safely. Here in Congress we are going to do everything we can to protect them and America's interests. That is why we have fought so hard under Chairman Spence's leadership for quality of life, equipment modernization and readiness.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, patriotism--love of country--is a quality that seems to be particularly characteristic of Americans. What is even more remarkable is that those born abroad who choose to make America their adopted country often come to share the same patriotic spirit that Americans display in their daily lives. Immigrants who come to our shores seeking a better life often find that their new lives are a struggle, but a struggle that pays off more than they could ever have dreamed. There are so many places around the world where hard work does not result in real opportunity and success. But American success stories are all around us--especially from those who came from overseas and started from nothing but a desire to make a better life for themselves. Miguel and Carmen Cossios are such a success story. Dr. Cossios and his wife fled their native Cuba in 1968 after witnessing first-hand how thoroughly socialism crushes the human spirit and corrupts the soul. These two brave freedom-lovers fled Fidel Castro's communist tyranny and decided to start all over again. Penniless but determined to achieve their dreams in a country that encourages everyone to pursue his dreams to the fullest, the Cossios built a new life for themselves in Baker County, Florida. Their life stories are an inspiration to all Americans, present and future. Miguel and Carmen are great Americans. [From the Baker County, FL Press, Feb. 23, 1995] The Sheer Determination To Start All Over--Retirement of Cossios but Part of a Remarkable Refugee Saga (By Jim McGauley) Imagine yourself a young man of 42 with an intense love of your native country, a proud heritage steeped in the military, a medical degree and a lovely family including four young sons who all bear the same first name out of deference to their distinguished ancestors. Now imagine yourself with nothing. No job, no country, no home, no possessions, no money--none of the things that in 1995 link us to survival. Nothing except a proud determination to begin again and transplant the traditions of your forefathers to another shore where the freedom to do it all over again is to you ``like oxygen.'' It's the stuff that has made real patriots of people like Cuban born Miguel Cossio and his wife Carmen, who retire this week from Northeast Florida State Hospital in Macclenny after a combined 48 years of service, he as a psychiatrist and she a pharmacist. Patriots in love with two countries, their native land where they hope someday freedom returns, and their adopted land that rewarded them for grit and determination. The Cossios were feted last Thursday to a reception and retirement ceremony at the hospital where Miguel has filled a number of roles on the medical staff since he first reported there in 1971, including clinical director. During a brief ceremony they accepted plaques from the state and co-workers, and Dr. Cossio told the group he would like to be remembered as a ``Cuban Baker County redneck.'' Though Dr. Cossio has some reservations about the conversion of NEFSH from an accredited ``medical model'' to the present UTR system, he credits the institution as central to the family's re-emergence in its adopted country. ``Everyone here has been so gracious to us. We think of the hospital and Macclenny as our home town. I am very glad to say our headquarters will continue to be in Baker County.'' The Cossios recently bought a house in Macclenny, unique in itself because most of the medical staff lives outside Baker County since the closing of on-campus housing several years ago. The road to last Thursday and this week, which marks the Cossios' actual retirement date, began shortly after Miguel and Carmen landed in Miami as penniless refugees in December, 1968. Cuba had been Fidel Castro's a full decade by then, and the repressive regime was ridding itself of a meddlesome intelligentsia, family by family. It was Dr. Gustavo Arias, then clinical director at NEFSH, who first summoned Miguel Cossio down here from Binghamton, N.Y. to interview as a staff psychiatrist. Public and private medicine, particularly on the East Coast, was by the early 1970's dotted with refugees from the island nation just off Key West. It was the kind of network that brought Dr. Cossio back together with Arias, a former supervisor at the military hospital in Havana and at the big psychiatric hospital there. For nearly three years, Dr. Cossio crammed for the qualifying exam for foreign physicians (he had to learn English first), which he passed on the first try. Carmen, his high school sweetheart, supported the family in New York as a pharmacist (she held a doctorate from the University of Havana). When Arias, a former partner in private practice in Cuba, had an opening on the staff here, he called his old friend. ``Our struggle to leave Communist Cuba was extremely difficult,'' says Dr. Cossio with a shake of the head. ``I look back now at what we went through, and it could easily be the theme of a mini-series, I tell you.'' Before signing on at NEFSH, Dr. Cossio had to re-take a residency program in psychiatry at a New York mental hospital. The move to Macclenny was also the family's first experience in a rural area. The boys, Miguel, Eduardo, Carlos and Roberto, were still a bit weak in English but assimilated well into Baker County schools. They mirrored the friendly demeanor of their parents and were excellent athletes. Miguel was an all conference pick and most valuable player on the Wildcat baseball squad, and along with his brothers lettered in several sports. All the boys went on to college and medical school, and now practice in Georgia: Micky and Eddie as internists in Madison, Carlos an endocrinologist in Athens and Robert a pediatrician in Savannah. They all have the first name of their father, as do the male grandsons, because Dr. Cossio wants to preserve the memory of his father and grandfather, who he calls ``men of strong principles.'' ``They fought for freedom and independence of our motherland. In September, 1933, my father was a prominent officer in the Cuban Army and died in a battle in Havana during a rebellion. ``He lost his life fighting in defense of national principles. For my ancestors, like for us, freedom has been as important as oxygen. This is the basic reason we are in the USA.'' Carmen and Miguel plan to keep their licenses current though are unsure now how active they will remain in their professions. Several years ago, the 69-year-old Miguel gave into the pleas of his sons and underwent a multiple heart bypass operation at Emory University in Atlanta, and credits it with renewed energy that he plans to devote to politics and his beloved Cuban clubs in Jacksonville and Miami. It was through the Republican Party in South Florida that Dr. Cossio became involved last year in the Jeb Bush campaign for governor. ``Rest? I doubt it. I cannot imagine my husband sitting at home watching TV day and night. He has always been very active,'' observes Carmen. Along with politics and keeping up with his pals, Dr. Cossio plans to see more of his sons and the couple's eight grandchildren (another is expected this spring). He may even start on his memoirs. One of the plaques last Thursday was presented by Dr. Alfredo Romeu, a childhood friend with a similar refugee background who also plans to leave NEFSH along with his physician wife Esther in the near future. They are near the last of a line of Cuban born doctors that have worked at NEFSH in its three and a half decades of existence. Like most of his contemporaries, Dr. Bossio yearns for the day that Cuba tosses off the Castro regime and rejoins the American community of nations. ``Before we die, we would like to see freedom and prosperity in Cuba again. We still have close relatives and friends there, living in horrible slavery and poverty. ``As soon as that happens, we can say, `God, thanks again for everything, now we can rest.' For us it will then be time to face eternity. Our mission on Earth has been accomplished.'' Words from the mouth of someone who truly knows what it takes to get there.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Evans County, Georgia certainly has its share of outstanding citizens. Perhaps because in Evans County people still take very seriously things like God, patriotism, and civic responsibilities. And so, among so many outstanding citizens, it gives me particular pleasure to pay tribute today to one of Evans County's own who never failed to live up to those standards--Joe Kennedy, loving father, devoted husband, political leader, and outstanding Georgian. Born and raised in Claxton, Joe spent his whole life dedicated to serving his fellow citizens in public life. He was the kind of elected official people always felt was working for them, for Joe was a guy who, over a period of 40 years in public life, always seemed to be truly happy to help people in any way he could. He seemed happy to help because he was. He enjoyed serving people, and he was so very proud of his participation in a profession that he believed to be a noble. one. If Joe were alive today, he would surely be astonished that some people are even asking the question of whether character matters. What an absurd question, and he could not conceive of why anyone might even suggest that a man's integrity was not the most important consideration of all. A veteran of the U.S. Army, Joe served with distinction in the Korean war and received numerous decorations for his service, including the Bronze Star, the Korean Service Medal, and the United Nations Medal with two battle stars in the Korean war. After being honorably discharged in June 1953, with the rank of captain, he returned to his native Georgia and began to build a life for himself and his family. In 1996, Joe was elected to the Georgia Legislature, serving District 4 in southeast Georgia. He went on to represent that district for a total of 24 years, 24 years in a position where he set the standard for being responsive to his constituents. Although fiercely proud of being a Democrat, and proud of his conservative credentials, Joe was not a partisan. His loyalty was to a better Georgia for all citizens. This came before party or politics. He loved nothing more than finding a way to achieve his goals while obscuring the source of the credit. But we must give credit where credit is due, and the state of Georgia is marked in many ways by his legacy of accomplishments. The highway running through Claxton to Interstate 16, a section of which now bears his name, was expanded to four lanes as a result of his efforts. Joe was behind the construction of the Claxton Regional Youth Development Center, an activity employing 30 people. The determined perseverance of Joe Kennedy was also behind the Southeast Detention/Probation Center, the Ogeechee Technical Institute, and the Claxton Seniors Citizens Park--institutions which provide a service to Georgians and which employ hundreds of our citizens. And Georgia Southern University obtained its university status in great part as a result of Joe's persistent efforts to improve the higher education opportunities that would be available to southeastern Georgia students. The list of his accomplishments is long, and they are, indeed, the visible reminders of his legacy. But to the people who knew him, and who loved him, those are not the things that will bring a wistful smile to our faces when we recall his memory. As a young man, Joe soon earned a reputation for being a man of his word. As he rose in power and influence, that never changed. To Joe, honesty was simply the way to do business, and he would never sacrifice the trust he had earned for some short-term advantage. Joe did not win every election he entered, but he did win the hearts of the people who knew him best, and his performance during his race for lieutenant governor validated the high opinion we had of him. Slick out-of-state consultants with briefcases full of dirty tricks never worked for Joe Kennedy. He was straightforward to supporters and opponents. After the polls closed, Joe accepted the decision of the voters with the same quiet dignity that has been characteristic of his rich, extraordinary life. He still had his integrity and he still had a passion to serve his fellow Georgians. Joe went on to occupy other high positions in the Georgia State government, and to his last days he did what he loved most: talking to people about public policy issues and finding out how best to solve the political problems that confront us all. He brought that enthusiasm to his last position in government as a member of the Georgia Board of Regents. How fitting it was to learn that on the day that God had decided was his time, Joe was speaking to the downtown Rotary Club of Statesboro. He was doing what he loved right to the end. He will be dearly, dearly missed. God bless you, Joe Kennedy. To his beautiful wife Lalah, children Debra, Cliff, and Adam, to all of his in-laws, grandchildren, and relatives, thank you for sharing him with us.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today Congress will pass a number of appropriations bills. While there are many important agencies funded by the legislation involved in these bills, one that all Members of Congress and people in south Georgia can take particular pride in is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). This, of course, is that important agency which trains our heroic Capitol police force. I have the honor of representing FLETC, and had the pleasure of learning much about it through former director Charlie R. Rinkevich. Today it is a special treat to recognize Charlie, who retired last March after 34 years of public service. Thirty-four years of the kind of distinguished service that will be missed by the people he served, the people he worked with, and the people whose lives he touched in so many ways. Although the expression ``dedicated public servant'' is used all the time, there is simply no other way to describe Charlie Rinkevich. For 15 of those 34 years in government service, Charlie served as the director of FLETC, located in Glynn County, Georgia. I think all my colleagues would agree, even those who, like me, are proud champions of limited government--I think everyone would agree that Charlie's job is a critically important one, and one that benefits the public to a degree that few realize. In fact, law enforcement is one of the few things that all citizens expect and demand of their government. In fact, it is the ultimate bipartisan public service--all citizens have the right to equality before the law, equal justice, and the rights to due process accorded by our Constitution. Law enforcement is the bedrock of a civilized society; it is what distinguishes society which are governed by the rule of law and those which are governed by the whims and caprices of tyrannical leaders or petty bureaucrats. Some societies--in fact, most societies do not trust their law enforcement agencies, for corruption is a way of life. Americans expect more. Americans expect their police force, their court system, and the Federal law enforcement officers to be honest and to serve the public whose rights they are sworn to uphold. And for the most part, they can count on the people who make our system of justice work. But to make our system of justice work, you need to have people like Charlie Rinkevich make it work. Justice does not come from a piece of paper. If it did, the Soviet Union would have been a paragon of justice. Justice does not come from a sacred document, even one as wise and far-sighted as our Constitution. If it did, Communist China would be a worker's paradise where everyone's rights and freedoms were respected. No, justice comes from honest people who take part in a system they truly believe in, a system that, while never perfect, is the best one can hope for in an imperfect world. Justice comes from honest people who teach honesty to others, who lead by example, and who care deeply about a country they are so, so proud to live in. Justice comes from the work of honest people like Charlie Rinkevich. The list of Charlie's Rinkevich's accomplishments is long and impressive. But no professional achievement--no award, and no honor--can ever replace or compare with honesty and integrity. Without honesty and integrity, professional achievements are meaningless and ultimately, unfulfilling. Without honesty and integrity, no one's career, even one that lands you on the very top, is worth much. Without honesty and integrity, you will never be a role model to your kids, your family, and your community. Charlie Rinkevich IS a role model, not only for his life of professional achievements and accolades, but for his character as well. Character is developed by toil, sacrifice, and struggle. Hard-won, it is easily tarnished or destroyed. Charlie teaches the value of character in the law enforcement officials he trains. It is the kind of thing that is often taught by people who take pride in their work, especially teachers, coaches, and members of the clergy. From his start as a police patrolman in Michigan 34 years ago to his tour as director of FLETC, Charlie took pride in his work urged others to view public service with this work ethic. The serious business of law enforcement thrives when people have this kind of attitude toward their job. It gradually sinks into incompetence and disinterested malaise when they don't. A positive attitude and a strong work ethic go hand in hand, and law enforcement officials everywhere immediately recognize what will happen to effectiveness when attitudes slip and the work ethic slides. That's why Treasury Secretary George Schultz appointed Charlie to his position as head of FLETC in 1983. FLETC is the largest law enforcement training organization in the United States. Formed in 1970, FLETC's mission is to provide the highest quality of training at the lowest possible cost. Seventy Federal law enforcement agencies in all levels of government now participate in consolidated training at FLETC, training which includes the international arena. Last year, over 23,000 students graduated from basic, specialized, and management level training programs. Quite simply, the quality of the training conducted at FLETC has a direct impact on the American people's attitude toward government. We live in a time during which the public trust has been eroded. Without a system of justice that is widely perceived as fair, honest, and free from corruption in the vast majority of cases, there can be no trust in government, and cynicism about our democratic system will undermine our faith in America. On behalf of the citizens of the 1st District of Georgia, I would like to thank you, Charles Rinkevich, for undertaking the burden that positions of public trust require. I commend you for the long years of loyal government service you have worked with such dedication and enthusiasm. I am very proud to have the opportunity to recognize your achievements this day. Thank you, and may others be inspired to follow your path in public service.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress that has been so maligned by partisan Democrats has been the first Congress since 1969 to balance the budget. It has been the first Congress to have tax cuts in 16 years. It has been the first Congress to reform and protect Medicare on a bipartisan basis. And the first Congress to have welfare reform and 40 percent of the people who were on welfare in 1994 are now independent, working. This is hardly a record to be scoffed at. What have we done this year? We have protected Social Security. We have stopped the Democrat practice of taking the surplus out of Social Security and spending it on roads and bridges. We have protected the family farm with the farm disaster bill. We have protected education by giving more power to local school boards and less from Washington bureaucracy. And we are on the verge of passing major drug legislation that will give strong interdiction, strong prevention and rehabilitation services. We think this is a solid legacy. This Congress will be remembered as the surplus Congress. I am proud that I played a part of it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to follow a discussion like that of one of our great colleagues, a beloved Californian, but I want to get to the subject of the budget. As the Speaker knows, we have been here in Washington camped out now for some 10 to 15 days trying to get a budget agreement with the White House and the Senate. I think it is very important for people to realize that, although we clash so often over partisan reasons, there is a lot more to the partisanship than just not agreeing. There are genuine philosophical differences between often liberals and conservatives. There are philosophical differences that have to do with the reasons we are elected. People are elected because they said I am a conservative, I am a liberal. When I go to Washington, I want to represent those liberal views or those conservative views. Guess what. We get 435 people elected to the House of Representatives on their own individual platforms, and of course we are going to have debates and of course we are going to have some disagreements. Often, that is going to be betrayed as partisanship, and sometimes there is a partisanship element to it. But there is a real profound ideological difference here. The Speaker has said that, look at it this way, Congress is the Civil War without bullets, or it is a substitute for civil war. It is a peaceful way to carry on our republic. I think that that is what has been going on the last 15 days. The budget debate did not start 15 days ago. It did not start in the summertime. It does not start with the first appropriations bill. It has started long before most of us were elected. We came here with ideas of what to cut and what to increase, what to spend money on and what not to. But we have been engaged in this process, most of us, since the time we were candidates. Then this year, as the appropriations bills went through, we debated various amendments and various spending levels. I am on the Committee on Appropriations. I can tell my colleagues there is hardly anything that is in an appropriations bill that has not had a hearing, that has not had a debate, that has not had a question that has not been scrutinized. Things in there have been well looked at and well debated. We are at this process where we finally have a massive budget agreement, and I think it is good. I am very excited about this budget agreement. There is a little bit of this and a little bit of that in there. There are some things that the Democrats can say they have won on, some things Republicans can say they have won on. But the ultimate winners are the American people. That is what is important for us to do at the end of the day, not say which party won, but say what the American people won. Here are some things in there that I believe Americans won. Drugs. We have strong anti-drug language in there. We have beefed up the position of the drug czar. We have given him more power to fight the drug thugs. It used to be that, when the drug lords were out in my area, as my colleague knows, I represent coastal Georgia, the Coast Guard does a lot of drug interdiction. They cannot keep up with the drug runners and their powerful boats. Those days are over with. Now the Federal agencies can go after them. There is nothing more frustrating than having drug dealers having higher technology than law enforcement. I am glad to say that is over with. Interdiction is very, very important. This is a product, Mr. Speaker, that has grown in South America and processed often in other South American countries and then sneaked in in the dark of the night into America and sold in the school yard near us. The employees of this company that sell this insidious product, if you will, the drug pushers, they cannot advertise. They cannot exchange business cards. They cannot even tell anyone they do. Yet, in every school district from Maine to Florida to California, they can get illegal drugs, and they did get to our 12 years olds, our 14 years olds, our 15 years olds. This Congress and this bill has taken a strong step to say, get the heck out of our school yards. In addition to cracking down on the drug dealer, we also have strong rehab. Because if somebody has gotten off track and they have become addicted to drugs, we want them to be able to turn to somebody or some agency or some institution when they are ready and say I want out. Can you help me? Can you throw me that lifeline? We are putting the needed resources into institutions, not all Federal, not all State, and certainly not all governmental, but we are doing it with nonprofit agencies as well to say that, if you want to get off drugs, we want to have the bridge there to get you off drugs. We hope you do not ever get on drugs, but if you are ready to come home, we want to be there to help you. That is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a very significant step for the streets of America, for the safety of our kids. Another thing that is in this omnibus bill is education. We in the Republican Congress are committed to having world class education. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) has children, because I get his Christmas cards. What we have in our family is we have got an 8-year-old, a 10-year- old, and a 13-year-old, and a 15-year-old. My children and the gentleman's children are not going to be competing Georgians versus kids from Illinois versus kids from California. But they are going to be American kids competing against German kids and Japanese kids and British kids. They are going to be part of this big global economy that we have. In that spirit, we want to be sure that our American children can go head-to-head in science, head-to-head in math, trigonometry, and calculus, head-to-head in physics and chemistry, and head-to-head not just in English, but of all language skills. We want them to be able to compete in it. We think an important part of that is local control of schools, not Washington command control, but local controls. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), one of the leaders in this budget fight, one of the toughest defenders of the hardworking dollars, tax paid dollars, paid by American middle class. He has joined us now, and it is an honor to yield to him.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. And let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. This Congress has brought us the balanced budget, that has cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, that has on a bipartisan basis reformed Medicare, and on a bipartisan basis reformed welfare, with 40 percent of the people who were on it in 1994 now being off of it. This year we have accomplished greater drug laws, greater education laws, greater opportunities for our school kids, protected Social Security, modernized our military and our government. Next year we are going to go on to reduce taxes further, increase the quality of education and health care protection. It is an exciting time to be an American.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I wanted to say one other story about nationalizing education. I have in my area Saint Marys, Georgia, a small coastal community. And I was down there last year and a teacher told me she had just returned from Athens, Georgia, my hometown where the University of Georgia is, and there she went to a seminar on how to behave around kids. It was the bureaucrats telling the teachers in Saint Marys, Georgia, do not be alone with the kids. Do not go to the bathroom with the kids, because they might accuse you of improper advance and so forth. And I can understand that. But it kind of got worse. I think that the teacher could probably use her own common sense of when it is appropriate to be alone with the child. But one of the things they said was, if a kid stays after class for punishment or tutorial help, do not meet with the child alone. Imagine how awkward and difficult that would be. If a student needs a little help with math and can go in to see the teacher, they do not want to have to make a big production out of it. There should not have to be a witness to learn how to do a quadratic formula. But it went on from there. They said do not ever hug kids. In her particular case, she was teaching small children and she said some of them come from a broken family. They need a hug more than they need an A or a B, and it is very important for her to show some affection to the kids. But when we have big bureaucracies telling teachers how to do it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. KINGSTON. Outside of my district but in the district of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), there is a little town called Gray, Georgia. Gray, incidentally is the home of Otis Redding. There was a teacher there who was one of these classic institution teachers that used to be filled in all of the school systems throughout the country. This teacher had about 30 years experience and she was the one that taught your big brother, maybe your big cousin and maybe in some cases your mom and dad, but she taught you and she taught you well. Everybody loved her. They had an expert from the Department of Education come in. The expert was about 24 years old and she told this teacher, this 30-year veteran teacher, she said, you need to start teaching kids on the left- hand side of the chalk board because you write on the right-hand side of the chalk board and the kids' brains, the intuitive part of the cognitive dissidence of the brain, or some such garbage, it makes it easier for kids to learn if it is on one side of the chalk board because that is the learning side of their brain. Here is this teacher, who has an army of success stories, just a thick fan of followers, and so this young whippersnapper from the Department of Education came in here and wanted her to change the way she did business and the teacher was wise enough to say, well, thank you for your suggestions, and I will certainly put it under consideration. We will start doing that. Why do not you just get in your car, do not worry about this classroom. You have shown us how to do it now. You get on back to the Department of Education. Of course, the young consultant took off and the teacher continued in her archaic ways that had proven true for the previous 30 years. But that is the kind of absurdity that our teachers and our veteran classic teachers have to put up with. So having that local control is so important because do you know what I suspect, I suspect that there is a lot that my Georgia school kids have in common with your Arizona school kids, but I would also suspect that maybe your teacher out there in Arizona might know what she or he needs to do to teach them a little bit better than the folks in Washington do, and they might know the difference between the kids' needs in Georgia and the kids' needs in Arizona without this cookie cutter Washington command, one-size-fits-all approach to education.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am often amused when I hear Democrats say this is a do-nothing Congress. What they mean is we have done nothing towards increasing the taxes, we have done nothing towards increasing the size of government, and then nothing to further destroy the American dream which they seem to be so intent on. What we have done though is pass the first tax cut in 16 years, we have balanced the budget for the first time since 1969 when Woodstock was at Max Yasgur's farm, and Mod Squad was on TV, and Neil Armstrong was on the moon. We have reformed Medicare on a bipartisan basis. We have reformed welfare, and almost 40 percent of the people on welfare have gotten off it in the last 3 years. What have we done in this budget agreement? Strong drug interdiction, strong prevention and rehabilitation programs. What have we done for education? We have returned more dollars and more power and more flexibility to the local level where the teacher in the classroom gets most of the money, where the teacher in the classroom can make most of the decisions, where the teacher in the classroom can call the shots on how to teach Johnnie to read and how to teach Susie to read because they might be a little bit different in Georgia then they are in California or New York. These are important steps. This is not a do-nothing Congress.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 589, I hereby give notice that the following suspensions will be considered tomorrow, October 16, 1998: H.R. 1197, Plant Patent Amendments Acts of 1997; H.R. 1756, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998; S. 610, Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for the yielding to me. I am glad to be here on Riggs behalf. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to call him Frank Riggs. I am going to call him Riggs, because since a small boy growing up at the Athens YMCA, I called all guys who were near my age by their last name. But Frank Riggs, being an old school gentleman type, called me on the House floor one day and said, ``I really prefer to be called Frank and I think we should dignify this place in doing such.'' So Frank, you trained me, and I will call you Frank even when I see you from here on out. I want to say this, I knew Frank Riggs as a candidate in 1992. I was given a poster of the gang of 7. The gang of 7 was everybody's hero model. The gang of 7 consisted of Mr. Doolittle, among others, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and Mr. Riggs. I am leaving out the other three. Mr. Herger, if you were one of them, I apologize. But we all loved the gang of 7 because they were the ones who were the young turks who blew open the House bank scandal, which the folks of America did not understand why there were so many overdrafts by Members of Congress. We were just so appreciative of this young energetic, very small, but determined group who blew the whistle on that and said this Congress cannot continue to have such shenanigans. So I knew who Frank Riggs was. It took me two more years to get a chance to meet him because he had a little mishap on the way to reelection that year, with no fault of his own. He has one of the most difficult and competitive districts in the country. But Frank rejoined us in 1994, and I had the opportunity to serve on the Committee on Appropriations with him. He was a very energetic Member. He had been here. It showed. He knew his way around the place. He immediately jumped on all kinds of other issues, education, WIC, D.C. scholarships, regular scholarships, English first, all kinds of issues that affect California, agriculture, particularly looking into issues that had to deal with the California wine industry. He was just a very great Member to sit next to. Then the next year he moved over to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and became a superstar on that. I think the previous speakers have covered that, so I have got to go back to another personal story. Bipartisan retreat on the train to Hershey, Pennsylvania, looking over at my seat, I had my family and my four children running up and down the aisles, and looked over there, and there was Frank. Frank had on some headphones. He had two pencils in his hands, and he was playing the drums, and he was rocking out, having a great time, much to the absolute humiliation of his teenage children who were sitting there looking around saying, ``Dad, would you please quit doing this.'' But I could tell that, even as they were calling him down in that embarrassment that teenagers sometimes can have of us parents, they loved him. It was ``Dad, you are being dad again, and we love you, but can you cut it out a little bit.'' Cathy and her relationship with him, we got to know them sitting next to them on this train. I can tell it is just a great family. I was a little bit disturbed when his teenage son, who is a big strapping boy, I think is six feet tall, started e-mailing my 15-year- old daughter, but those things happen. If my daughter has to get interested in boys, I will reluctantly accept that. If it has to take place, somebody who is an offspring of Cathy and Frank Riggs has got to be okay, because having served with his dad for these years that I have had the honor to serve for, I know he is a first-class guy. The House is better having a guy like this in the House, and the country is stronger because of Frank Riggs' service, and we will miss him dearly. I wish you the best.