Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act. In particular, I would like to address one portion of the act regarding Cumberland Island National Seashore in my district. Cumberland Island National Seashore is governed largely by two establishing acts. The first, in 1972, created the seashore. The second, the 1982, established a large wilderness area on the island. Unfortunately, this act was assembled hastily and before the National Park Service's wilderness suitability study was completed. The unfortunate result was that the wilderness designation was placed on top of a number of important historic assets, essentially locking them away and seriously jeopardizing their existence. While the listing of these structures, districts, and sites on the National Register of Historic Places represents the Federal Government's obligation to protect them, their inclusion within the wilderness in 1982 seriously undermines that effort. Not only does it impede public access to these treasures, it presents significant obstacles to their preservation. These concerns were recognized and noted to Congress in writing at the time by both the President and the Department of Interior, but they were not corrected. Mr. Chairman, Cumberland Island is a beautiful and unique island. The diversity of its resources is one of its greatest strengths. My intention in introducing this legislation is to recognize the value of this diversity and protect it. I believe it is indeed possible--and imperative in this case--to protect both the natural and historic assets. They do not have to be mutually exclusive goals. This bill takes three basic steps to achieve this balance. First, it removes the wilderness or potential wilderness label from structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This provision will lift restrictions on the Park Service as to the steps they can take to preserve them. It also removes the fundamental conflict of mandates on how these structures are to be treated: whether they are to be preserved according to the Historic Preservation Act of allowed to ``revert to their natural state'' consistent with the Wilderness Act. The bill also seeks to provide public access to these sites. Because they are encased in wilderness, the only way for the public to visit them is by making a 15 to 30 mile round trip hike. Obviously, only very healthy backpackers can ever see and learn from these sites. A two- hundred year old road (which itself has been designated as a national historic asset), known as the ``Main Road'' or ``Grand Avenue'' runs from the south end of the island up to many of these historic sites within the wilderness. Our bill allows this road to be used in some manner which does not have an undue negative impact on the wilderness so that the park's visitors can see, study, and enjoy these sites. Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, few visitors even realize all that exists on the island, let alone the events that enhance their historic significance. Cumberland's history is as rich as Georgia's. Off its shore, pirates once loomed and British and Spanish warships fought. Soldiers were stationed there in the War of 1812. Revolutionary War hero Nathaniel Greene and his remarkable wife Katie Littlefield Greene farmed and planted there. Their Cumberland Island timber business supplied the wood for ``Old Ironsides.'' Thomas Carnegie built mansions on the Island and once had over 300 servants there. On the north end of the island is a historic settlement called Half Moon Bluff founded by newly emancipated slaves. This was one of the first free Black settlements in America and one of the few which embodies and represents their transition from slavery to freedom and landownership. In all, there are nine Cumberland island sites and districts and many structures on the National Register of Historic Places. Today many of their remnants are gone, and the rest are decaying. The third component of the legislation authorizes the restoration of the beautiful historic Plum Orchard mansion which has dangerously deteriorated. This house was gifted to the Federal Government on the condition that it be maintained and enjoyed by the public. I am sorry to say that this trust has been betrayed. Without serious and prompt intervention, this structure like some of its surrounding buildings will fall victim to neglect. This not only marginalizes the Historic Preservation Act, it serves as a pitiful warning to other citizens who would like to donate valuable cultural or historic assets to the government. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support of this legislation and point to this provision as a model for the protection of all resources, natural and historic, which fall within our government's trust.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, not wanting to respond directly to my friend, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), I must say apparently she has not read the bill. There is nothing in the bill that talks about a land swap. I would invite my friend to read the bill. But then again, that might be asking too much of a Democrat. But that is not in the bill. I do want to say this, Mr. Speaker, in terms of ``What It Means to Be a Democrat'', the article that was in the Washington Post by Michael Kelly. He talked to the Committee on the Judiciary the other day about that crimes, even if they had been committed, did not matter. He said what mattered were statements, whether truthful or not, but what was their context. What the author Michael Kelly talked about is this is where the Democrat party has now come to, that it does not matter if you lie or tell the truth, it just mattered what the contexts are. Is that what the new Democrat values are? They can talk about a bill that does not even have legislation in it and speak against the bill, but truth does not matter as long as you are a Democrat. The context is what matters. I think it is very important for my colleagues to know what the Democrat party, it seems, has fallen to. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 7, 1998] What It Means To Be a Democrat (By Michael Kelly) Defining moments in politics sometimes arrive with fanfare and glory and purpose: ``I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a New Deal for the American people.'' And sometimes they slip in unplanned and unannounced, and mostly unnoticed--moments where something is defined not by intent but by default. The defining moment for what it means to be a Democrat now, in the time of Clinton, sidled quietly on-stage this week, on the afternoon of the day when all 16 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, in dereliction of their constitutional duty, voted to block an inquiry into whether a president who is of their party had committed impeachable offenses. David P. Schippers, the chief investigative counsel for the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, had concluded his official report to the committee with a careful finding that ``there exists substantial and credible evidence of 15 separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that . . . may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.'' Schippers then spoke briefly not as a counsel but as ``a citizen of the United States who happens to be a father and a grandfather.'' He paraphrased the line given Sir Thomas More in the play ``A Man For All Seasons'': ``The laws of this country are the great barriers that protect the citizens from the winds of evil and tyranny. If we permit one of those laws to fall, who will be able to stand in the winds that follow?'' This was a Democrat speaking. But Schippers, who ran Attorney General Robert Kennedy's organized crime task force in Chicago, is a Democrat from another time. Every word that Schippers spoke, in his grave and sober and serious report, rested not on the values of any vast right-wing conspiracy, but on what were once the values of a vast (and now almost vanished) Democratic liberalism, a liberalism that knew that it was the office that was sacred, not the man; that it was the law that ruled, not the ruler. That was then, this is now. When Schippers spoke for the sacred law and for the old values, what was the reaction of the Democrats who sat listening to him in that committee room? They rushed to the chairman to complain that such talk was out of order. And Henry Hyde was happy to concede the point; if the Democrats wished to declare themselves opposed to even oratorical support for the rule of law--why, that would be fine with the Republicans. Hyde ordered Schippers' remarks stricken from the record, and the moment was complete. So it went. Speaking for the old values, Schippers declared that it must matter if the president had broken the law because he was ``the chief law enforcement officer of the United States,'' a man who had taken an oath to ``preserve, protect and defend'' the law and whose minions wielded the law against the rest of us citizens. Acts of perjury and obstruction of justice--for any reason, in any case-- perpetuated by the man who controlled the forces of the law, Schippers said, would constitute ``deliberate and direct assaults . . . upon the justice system of the United States and upon the judicial branch of our government.'' The chief law enforcement officer of the United States must not be allowed to lie under oath with impunity, he said, for ``the principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the foundation of the American system of justice.'' Abbe Lowell, the chief investigative counsel for the Democrats on the committee, argued the case for the party's new values. The new values are: Law, schmaw. As Lowell explained, even if the president had lied under oath, even if he had obstructed justice, even if he had committed crimes-- it did not matter. One hears, said Lowell, airily, much talk of ``a largely rhetorical question: `Are you saying that lying under oath or obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense?' '' That question, he sniffed, may be suitable for ``classroom debate,'' but it was not a fit subject for Congress to consider. A proper inquiry, Lowell explained, should not focus on whether Clinton's ``statements were or were not truthful, but what were their context, what were their impact, and what were their subject matter.'' This is where the party of Franklin Roosevelt wishes to stand? On the ground that it is permissible--under certain circumstances, you see--for a president to lie under oath, to obstruct justice, to break the law? To stand for this is to stand for ``nothing but an appetite,'' to borrow Jesse Jackson's description of what lurked in the core of Clinton's soul. A party that stands for that must fall.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, after 2 years of being stricken and terrified with a Democrat House of Representatives, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat White House, the American people in 1994 changed horses. We put Republicans in charge of the House and the Senate, and what a difference it made as compared to when the Democrats were running the show, pushing for socialized medicine, and pushing and passing the largest tax increase in the history of the country, pushing for all kinds of new regulations on the American families and businesses. Republicans got in there, worked for balancing the budget. Now for the first time since 1969 the budget is balanced. Medicare reform. 1995, when the trustees said Medicare was going broke, went in and on a bipartisan basis saved and protected Medicare. And on the economy, by slowing down the rate of growth in government the economy has moved, and here is an indication of it where the Dow Jones industrial average in 1994 was at 3800. By 1998 it had gone towards the 9,000 level. That means lots of new jobs for American workers, and that shows what kind of a difference the ballot box can make.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Americans pay on the average about 40 percent of their total household income in taxes. In 1996, recognizing this, the Republican leadership pushed for a middle class tax cut, despite the President's and most of the Democrats' objections that people who want to pay less taxes are just selfish. Well, we are back at it again, another middle class tax cut. It has already passed the House. Marriage tax relief, ending the marriage tax penalty, relief for farmers and tax relief for the death tax penalty. And what are the Democrats and the President saying? They are saying this is going to adversely affect Social Security. Well, what does the Director of the Congressional Budget Office say? That the tax plan has no effect on Social Security. This is a Democrat chart so the word ``effect'' is misspelled. But then, again, we knew Democrats would be reading this and we wanted to share the information with them so we had to put it in their language. But the fact is, the point is right. The tax cut does not affect Social Security. Just how much is this? In the total budget scheme, Mr. Speaker, of $9.6 trillion, it is barely a slither of a slither of $80 billion in middle class tax relief over a 5-year period of time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, after 40 years of Democrat rule in the United States House of Representatives, what do we have? We have a national debt of about $5 trillion. Year after year, deficit spending. After 3 years of Republican rule, we have a surplus. What do we have after 40 years of Democrat rule on Medicare? A Medicare system that was going bankrupt. What do we have after 3 years of Republican rule? A Medicare system that was saved and protected on a bipartisan basis. Now on Social Security, after 40 years of Democrat rule, what do we have? $14 trillion that has been taken out of the Social Security trust fund and spent on roads and bridges and anything else, any special projects and wasteful spending the Democrats could dream up. What are Republicans doing about it today? We set aside $1.4 trillion for the Social Security trust fund. Not one dime in 40 years of Democrat rule has been set aside and protected for Social Security. It has all been taken out and backed up with a Treasury bill. Now Republicans are taking the step to look after not just American seniors for the next election but for the next generation.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak also on this farm crisis. I represent coastal Georgia, 18 southeast Georgia counties. But to the entire State of Georgia, the farm crisis has been devastating. The coastal area that I represent, Savannah, Brunswick, and Hinesville, often get hit by hurricanes. And when they get hit by hurricanes, it is easy to get FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Association, to come in, or GEMA, the Georgia Emergency Management Association, people to come in; because we have visual images, trees that have crashed through the roofs of houses, people who have lost their homes, businesses that are wiped out and then have power shortages for days at a time or refrigeration equipment that closes down and a product that goes rotten. They have boats that have been washed ashore and landed on Main Street. We have that kind of visual image when a hurricane hits, and so it is a little bit easier to get help. People come in. They send ice. They send chain saws. They send bulldozers. They write checks. The Red Cross comes in, the Salvation Army. We have been hit by such a crisis, but it is not quite as visible, and it is the farm crisis. We have lost $700 million in crop damage to the State of Georgia alone. I believe, listening to colleagues from all over the country, Democrats and Republicans alike, that the damage nationally may be as high as $3-, $4-, $5-, potentially $6 billion. It is tremendous. What our farmers in southeast Georgia have told me in a series of farm meetings that I had over the last couple of weeks is that they need, right now, a lifeline. And they do not really want to see Congress get in a big debate about how the lifeline gets to them. If they are a drowning man and somebody throws them an inner tube, a life preserver, a floating piece of log, anything to cling to is sufficient; and that is what they are. If the relief comes in crop insurance liberalization, if the relief comes in disaster loans, that is fine. Low-interest, no-interest loans, loans with little or flexible collateral; they need it and they need it now. They need market relief of prices. Prices are lower now than they were 2 years ago. They are cyclical by nature, but they are worse than ever. It seems like their foreign counterparts are heavily subsidized, and they do not have to comply with the EPA standards that we make our farmers comply with in terms of fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides and so forth. And that is fine. Our farmers are not bellyaching about complying with our environmental and regulatory and labor laws. But what they are saying is, their foreign competitors are not; and then on top of that, they are subsidized. It is very difficult for a Georgia farmer to produce oats to compete against imported oats. And we heard this message over and over again. We on the Committee on Agriculture on the appropriations side and on the authorizing side, we are trying to work for solutions. We need the Secretary of Agriculture to submit his disaster plan so that we can immediately start working with the Senate and the House Members to try to do something for them. Putting this in perspective, Mr. Speaker, imagine being a young farmer named Roy Collins. Roy is 35 years old. His farm was started by his grandfather, handed down to him from his mother and dad, and he has been a farmer now for 12 years. And at this point, if we cannot do something, he is wiped out. A third-generation family farmer will be gone forever. He will move off to Atlanta. He will sell real estate. He will go to work for a bank or something. We will lose his talent. We will lose his generation of farmers. The average age of a farmer in Georgia right now is 56. We cannot afford to skip a generation of farming. It becomes at that point an issue of national security, not just making a good vocation for people. But America does not and should not be dependent on foreign producers for our food.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, from Georgia to Hawaii, we are happy to work for the American family farmer; and at this point, if we do not help them, we will not have a family farmer left. So we are unified in party and geography on this.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and pay tribute to a Georgia-based private voluntary organization, MAP (Medical Assistance Programs) International. With an upcoming humanitarian shipment, MAP International will pass the $1 billion mark in the value of donated medicines and medical supplies shipped to people in the developing world who have little or no access to these life-saving medicines. During its 44 years of service, MAP International has responded to disasters worldwide and regularly stocks hospitals, clinics and remote health posts in over 100 countries. The efforts of MAP International represent the spirit of generosity of the American people; from the thousands of Americans who support the organization; to the fine American pharmaceutical companies who donate product for use among the poor; to the U.S. Government itself who assists many of the shipments with USAID funds. MAP has also cooperated with the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in responding to natural disasters here at home in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this important occasion in the history of MAP International.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, a republic means a lot more than just free elections and representative government. It requires a commitment to the political process from not only the candidates for public office, but from activist citizens who participate in the process. There are those who participate behind the scenes, with little recognition or publicity, without pay or perks, and with little regard for the cost to their personal lives in time and energy. They are political activists volunteers who are the heart and soul of every campaign, every election, and every contest between two visions for the future. They are the kind of people who care deeply about what kind of country we live in, and care enough to get involved in that great American tradition, the political campaign. Mac McCue is just such an activist. For years Mac McCue has been synonymous with Republican Chatham County politics. In fact, Chatham County Republicans could not even imagine an election without the services of Mac McCue. Some may think of Mac as a senior citizen, but those of us who know him cannot. In campaign after campaign, Mac has shown so much energy he makes the candidates look only partially committed! And he brings the same excitement to a campaign as he did to his first campaign, back in the 1950s. It doesn't matter whether the race is school board, city council, county commission, state legislature, U.S. Congress, or President, Mac is there. It doesn't matter if the candidate is a dark horse, an incumbent, a political veteran or a novice--If there's a Republican who needs help, Mac will help. It doesn't matter if it's putting up yard signs, stuffing envelopes, manning the phones, or going door to door--no job is beneath Mac if it needs doing. Mac is a guy who knows all the ups and downs of a campaign--the pitfalls to avoid, the tricks to get press, and secret for getting 25 hours of work done in the last 24 hours of a campaign. When the chips are down and the dark days set in as they do in all campaigns, Mac stands faithfully by. And on election night, if you fall a few votes short, Mac reminds you that there are other things--such as family--which are more important. And when the election is over and the crowds have gone home, Mac even sticks around to pick up your yard signs. In addition to all these talents, Mac can be the campaign humorist with one of his infamous limericks. He had hundreds of them, and you could always tell when he was working on one in his head, for he had that little smile that suggested that he was up to some clever mischief. One of them goes to the tune of ``Home on the Range.'' Oh give us a home-- Where the flounder can roam-- With trout and with bass on display; Where seldom are heard the economy word, And our taxes go up every day. It's hard to believe that he's not in the Poet's Hall of Fame! As you can see, he's a guy who can make a serious point, even when he is just having a little fun. Voters who encounter Mac on the campaign trail invariably come away with a positive feeling about the candidate he is supporting. He is so upbeat, so obviously committed to his beliefs, and so sincere in his enthusiasm, people naturally conclude that Mac is on the right side of the issues. Whether through politics or not, Mac has always loved and served his country. In the 1940s, he was in the South Carolina National Guard. He served in the Army during the Korean War; 20 years later he served in the Reserves. Mac along with his beautiful wife Millie have always made public service a part of their life because they care passionately about what kind of country we live in, and what kind of country their children and grandchildren will live in. Mac didn't care whether you were a longshot or not, and he didn't care if the media totally ignored you--if he believed in you, he was behind you 100%. Mac worked to help elect Lamar Davis to a state representative office, the same Lamar Davis who has since gone on to take a position as our U.S. bankruptcy judge. Former Savannah mayor Susan Weiner is another one of Mac's success stories, as are County Commissioner Ed Silas, State Senator Eric Johnson, State Reps. Anne Mueller and Herb Jones, and many others. Young at heart and dedicated to the core, Mac McCue is a friend and mentor to all the young people on their first campaign, and he is a tribute to our democratic system of government. Mac, we salute you, and we thank you for all the truly fine work you have done all these many years. Mike, we salute you and thank you for sharing Mac with us. You two are an inspiration to all people in government--so many who are now in office with your help--who believe that politics is important to people's lives and who believe that ideas are worth fighting for. You are great Americans!

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people criticize the current scandal, the most visible, the most popular scandal at the White House as being overblown and overdiscussed and so forth. I think perhaps that they have something to say. I think there is a lot of validity in that statement. I for one frankly am a lot more concerned about why the Chinese communists funneled into the Democrat National Party $3 million in illegal contributions during the last election. What was that all about? And why suddenly after that did we give them unprecedented missile technology, transfers from Loral Corporation, whose CEO Bernie Schwartz gave $600,000 personally to the reelection efforts of the Democrats and the President. But this is something that is not just Republicans getting mad at Democrats. This is what the liberal-leaning, Democrat-endorsing New York Times said, that Charles LaBella, who has been leading the Department of Justice campaign finance investigation, has now advised Attorney General Janet Reno that under both the mandatory and discretionary provisions of the Independent Counsel Act, she must appoint an outside prosecutor to take over this. I agree with Mr. LaBella. It is time to have an outside prosecutor to figure out why 3 million illegal contribution dollars went to the Democrat Party.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The Commerce, State and Justice bill has become part of the Clinton regain-credibility-by-shutting-down-the-government strategy. We have a disagreement, or let us say Clinton has a disagreement. He wants to renege on last year's promise and shut down the government using any excuse to do it. And what was last year's bipartisan agreement? To maintain two tracks on the census: Number one, the constitutional route. Remember that little rule book so carefully crafted by our Founding Fathers which many on this side and the administration consider a suggestion book, but the Constitution says, ``You will count people head by head to make sure no one is left out and no one, wink wink, is put in who doesn't exist.'' And then the Number Two: There is the polling method advocated by the President. The polling method is where we simply go out and we sample some of the population, we fill in the blanks on whatever discretion or whatever numbers we need. That is what this argument is about. Now think about this administration who has politicized the FBI, the BATF, the Immigration Service, the National Park Service, the Travel Service, the USDA and the EPA. Now they are doing the census service by bringing them into politics. And where is this Census Bureau who is so worried about their budget, so worried about the census crisis; where are they? Well, we have done a little investigation, Mr. Chairman, and here is where they are: Number one, the itinerary for the executives and the head bureaucrats over at the Census Bureau, they have got a busy month coming up: Rome, Italy, Trevoli Fountain, the Coliseum by moonlight. Paris, France, Champs Elysee by summer. Wiesbaden, Germany. I am getting ready for Octoberfest, beat the rush on the beer. Armenia. Well, everybody knows Armenians are experts in the census and then of course there is Malawi and Zomba, Malawi, which, as my colleagues know, I do not know exactly what they are, but I know they are real good at counting people and we need to go down there. And of course Rio de Janeiro. In case we miss Carnivale, we can go down there in the summertime. And then Taiwan. Of course. Census crisis, go to Taiwan. Makes sense to me. Will not have problems with missile technology transfers with their neighbor. The point is, if Clinton decides to shut down the government over this legislation, at least the Census Bureau will have enough frequent flyer points in the bank to keep running around the globe for another 3 months.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last Friday America's family room was invaded. I call the Rotunda in the United States Capitol America's family room, because this is where American tourists come and Americans come to see their government in action. The thin line between them, between safety and danger, safety and disaster, is the Capitol Hill Police. Last Friday, Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the sanctity of America's living room. The system worked. They protected the tourists, they protected Members of Congress, they protected the staff, and they were able to protect everyone but, unfortunately, themselves. Every day hundreds if not thousands of tourists and employees and Members of Congress walk by these brave men and women, and often we take them for granted, not necessarily in a negative sense, but you know they are there, you know they have got a job to do, and you are doing yours and you do not really think about it, but over time they become family. You know them by face, not necessarily every time by name. You know them, you like them, you exchange greetings and so forth. Then suddenly something like this happens, and it divides their job from your job and how important their job is and how ultimately their job endangers their lives as it protects our lives. I salute these brave men, I pray for their family, and our hearts and prayers are with them.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of squawking today from the Democrat side about their big protect-the-trial-lawyers health care bill. I think if you look at the Republican versus the Democrat bill, it is very clear: One of the bills gets you quickly into the courtroom, and the other one gets you quickly into the emergency room. The Republican bill gives you a choice of doctors; the Democrat bill gives you a choice of lawyers. Now, we know that the trial bar gives obscenely to the other side. We know that many on the other side want to socialize medicine, and we know that socialization leads to rationing of health care. But we believe that American consumers should have a choice of doctors and a choice of plans without interference from HMOs and government regulators. We do not believe in centralized health care planning. Last year my seven-year-old cut his foot and had to go in because of a complication to the surgery room and was in surgery for about two hours. During that time, and, I might add, there are certainly no atheists in a waiting room, but let me say this, while I was there, at least I knew that he was getting quality, professional, safe health care, free of excessive government bureaucracy regulating it and bringing down the quality. I was comforted by that, and I believe American consumers should be. Vote for health care reform, not lawyer reform.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard liberal after liberal, Democrat after Democrat, excuse me, I am being redundant, speak in favor of a new $2 billion tax increase. They are so proud of the Gore tax. Every time you call your mother, it is going to cost you a little bit more. Every time you have a medical emergency, a friend out of town, it is going to cost you more. Any time you have a loved one in California you want to call from the East Coast, it is going to cost you more, and the Democrats are so happy about it. Why are they happy about it? Well, for one thing, any tax is a good tax. We love all taxes. Another reason they are happy: we did not have to vote on it. It got sneaked in by their comrades in the Federal bureaucracy who sneaked it in. Not one congressional vote. I would say to my liberal colleagues, we know you like taxes. Why do we not vote on it? Since you are so proud of tax increases, why not bring this matter to the floor so that the Vice President can run on a new platform: I increased your phone taxes. I increased it for the poor people, I increased it for the old, I increased it for those on fixed incomes, and let them brag about it on the House floor.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. I want to say this. We hear over and over again about the poor farmers. Forty-two percent of the sugar program's benefits go to just 1 percent of the sugar producers. Thirty-three of these people get more than $1 million. So much for poor farmers. Or how about this poor struggling farmer, he gets $65 million, $65 million, to one poor little farmer out there. Mr. Chairman, this is a government-sanctioned cartel. We hear that it does not cost consumers. Listen very carefully when they say that, because the fine print says it costs you, it is just not a direct tax. It costs $1 billion more at the cash register when Americans go to buy products that have sugar in them. The sugar program was to be reformed in the farm bill. I was here before the farm bill. I was here during the farm bill. I worked for sugar reform. I come from an area where there were reforms on cotton and on peanuts and other commodities, but I can say this, sugar was not reformed. I was there at the time. I served in Congress. I can say this, since we are talking about a face. Savannah Foods and Industry 2 years ago invited me to their 80-year anniversary. It is a great company in Savannah, Georgia, that refines sugar. They invited me to their 80-year anniversary 2 years ago. Last year they did not. Why? Because they went out of business. They had to sell because of this government-sanctioned cartel that kept sugar prices higher than what they could sell it for. Because of this government-sanctioned cartel, there are people like Robert Johnson, who worked for the refinery for 18 years, whose daddy worked for the sugar refinery, who is part of the Savannah great economy, and Mr. Johnson is not sure he is going to have a job. It is now owned by what was a competitor, but he does not know what tomorrow will bring, because of a government- sanctioned cartel. Vote for the Miller amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today Speaker Newt Gingrich introduces one of the most important jobs bills that this Congress will consider during this term, and I am talking about the bill to reduce the capital gains tax from 20 percent to 15 percent. When this has been done in the past, starting in 1978, revenues went up $23 billion. When the capital gains taxes were cut again in 1981, revenues went up $9 billion. And in 1986, when capital gains tax rates were raised and not lowered, revenue loss was about $180 billion. If we give Americans the opportunity to sell goods at a lower price, they are going to do it. And in doing so, they are going to create more jobs. This would be great for entrepreneurs, for small businesses, for seniors and over one-half of American consumers who right now are savers. This is a very important jobs bill, and it is a bill that I am looking forward to a good debate on. I think that this Congress would be remiss in its duties if we did not act on it before the end of the session.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. That is excellent news. Let us take the Social Security completely out and do what the gentleman is proposing in his legislation, build a wall around it. The point I am really getting to, if you are walking down the street and you find a wallet with $100 in it, you do not immediately start thinking, how am I going to spend this? You think about, who does this belong to? How do I get it back to them? That is what we in Washington should be doing with any surplus, saying, whose money is this? How do we get it back to them? That should be our number one question in the context of let us pay off debt, money we have borrowed; but mostly, let us figure out whose money it is, which is not a hard question to answer, and how do we get it back to them, instead of what new programs should we start and what new buildings, airplanes should we buy, particularly when we are losing objects, large objects, like the gentleman has outlined.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, let us take that a step further. That is what I find so offensive and so absurd about what to do with the surplus. Both Members have outlined, and I am in 100 percent, there is really not a surplus. We have just taken the excess collected for Social Security, mixed it in the general revenues, to hide the deficit that is in the general revenues.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been listening with much interest on what you two have been doing on this, and I know you have been at it for many years and making progress. One of the things we have come across on the Committee on Appropriations, as you know, is plain out inefficiency, which is what this is, and the biggest example that we hear the most complaints about is the IRS. One of the examples that was testified is the IRS went into a restaurant in New York, asked the patrons to leave, put down their forks and knives, leave, because the restaurant was behind in their payroll taxes. A month later it was proven that it was a mistake. So what does the IRS do? They say gee, whiz, we are sorry. Think about that in the private sector, if you had somebody in charge of enforcing a law, a rule or whatever, in your company, and they blew it, just completely blew it. We are on the verge of passing a bill in on the IRS which is similar to the legislation you are working on for an intangible efficiency, if you will, but of saying that if you are dragged before the IRS, you are innocent until proven guilty, and it will do the same thing that your legislation does and what you are trying to do in education. It makes the individual frontline employee a little more careful to make sure he or she knows exactly what the goal is, what the rules are, and who the victim is. They put their rights out there and makes folks think twice. As you know, another interesting thing about the IRS is they could not be audited, because their books were in such disarray no one knew where the head of the snake was. But we are taking steps to change that.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there are three things we need to do to our Tax Code these days: We need to reduce it, we need to simplify it, and we need to change the attitude of the IRS. Last year Congress reduced taxes for the first time in 16 years. This time we are trying again by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. We also hope to reduce capital gains tax and end the death tax, or at least alleviate it. We have, last week, passed a bill to end the Tax Code by the year 2002, with the hopes that that will open up the debate and set a deadline for moving towards a flat tax or a sales tax. Finally, this week we will vote to change the attitude of the IRS in a very important major bill saying that you are innocent until proven guilty in matters before the IRS, and that is something that has never been the case in this country. Three things that this party is going to do and this Congress is going to do: Reduce the Tax Code, simplify the Tax Code, and change the IRS's attitude.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, you know there are a lot of lists in the world. There is the top 40 list of hit music, there is the top 10 list that Letterman is so famous for. There is the list of the World Series winners, the most valuable players, the Oscar winners and so forth. But then of course the White House keeps a series of lists. We all remember the list Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary had of friendly and unfriendly reporters. There are the lists that the White House had of 900 private citizens who were deemed enemies of the State because they were Republicans, and of course there is the donors list which they have in the tax-paid-for computer at the White House. But now there is a new list put out by James Carville, the Clinton righthand man. This is the list of enemies of the administration. Who is on this list? Such hard-core right wingers as Lamar Alexander. Keep that in mind next time putting on a plaid shirt. Such guys as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); oh, is he not a fire storm kind of guy? I mean one of the fairest and most respected Members of the House from both sides is on the list as an enemy of the State. And then there is Bill Bennett. Of course we know what he did. He wrote that book of virtues which is offensive to the administration. So I am going to submit this for the Record, Mr. Speaker. June 18, 1998. Judicial Watch Uncovers Carville ``Enemies List'' carville documents and files show information compiled on perceived clinton adversaries Documents produced by James Carville and his Education Information Project (EIP) in response to a Judicial Watch subpoena in its Filegate case show that Carville uses the organization as a means to compile information on perceived adversaries of President Clinton. In addition to Judicial Watch, the documents indicate that Carville targets and/or keeps files on the following persons and groups: Independnt Counsel Kenneth Starr, Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Congressman Henry Hyde, Richard Mellon Scaife, Olin Foundation, Landmark Legal Foundation, Congressman Dan Burton, Congressman Bob Barr, David Bossie, Kathleen Willey, Jacob Stein, Judge David Sentelle, Jim Guy Tucker, Paula Jones, Citizens for Honest Government, Bradley Foundation, Senator Jesse Helms. Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Lauch Faircloth, Pat Robinson, David Brock, Floyd Brown, Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman Jack Kingston, Brent Bozell, Concord Coalition, Common Cause, Susan Carpenter McMillan, Gil Davis, David Hale, Dick Morris, Richard DeVos/Amway, Lamar Alexander, Bill Bennett, Joe DiGenova. The documents also indicate that Carville likely works with Clinton lawyers David Kendall and Mickey Kantor in compiling some of his information on Kenneth Starr. Other evidence produced by Carville suggest that EIP considered, at least, using President Clinton's private investigator Terry Lenzner and his firm IGI to investigate Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the following congratulatory resolutions for the Southside Savannah Raiders baseball team and I add my own congratulations. A Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Georgia

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to something the previous speaker said about the Supreme Court's making a statement that they never came out against school prayer. That was not the case at all. If we look at the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962, a pertinent portion of this debate was when Engel stated, and I quote, ``Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the establishment clause, as it might be from the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the State by virtue of the 14th Amendment.'' So clearly there is a case where the Supreme Court has said that even voluntary prayer is a problem in terms of their interpretation of the Constitution. Because of that, because of their extreme approach on this, I do support this rule and the Istook amendment. I think one of the questions, as we get bogged down here, and clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is not a black and white issue, there are some grays in this issue, and I echo the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a lot of these items boil down to the size of government, an intrusive Washington command-and-control, one-size-fits- all government approach to everything and every solution. I still think some of these things do have to be handled on a local level. I think it does not harm society to have some local decisions on things like this. But we do have to ask ourselves a bigger question. We can all play lawyer here today. It is clear, listening to the debate, that everybody is trying to be lofty and historical and so forth. But let us just ask ourselves some basic questions: Is society better served by having a religious society? Is it more good or more harmful to have a prayer at graduation? Is it more good or harmful to have a prayer at a football game? If a child comes into school and her mother is sick and a student suggests, as the students get concerned and show concern, can they bow their heads and pray for the young lady's mom, is that harmful? I think if we look at the measure of the results of this, that it would be more helpful to have a more religious society, one that is tolerant and one that respects each other, rather than have these religion-free zones in public buildings, public institutions, whereby if we say anything that is religious, we are the perpetrator of some horrible crime, rather than somebody who is trying to take everyday life to a higher level so that we can acknowledge a Creator and a Higher Being. I believe if we ask ourselves those questions, we are going to realize that this amendment is not going to solve all the problems; the current situation we have does not solve all the problems, but we have to continue to support religion as a country and in public. Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends and fellow Members to support the Istook amendment.