Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. That would not be the first time. The question, though, this is a constitutional amendment. Therefore, it has to pass this House by 290 votes.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman this. Some of the critics feel that right wing Christian extremists are pushing this. And I have seen literature that labels groups who advocate this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. But that would mean you could have prayer which is not student led. You could have teacher-led prayer.

Mr. KINGSTON. Now, I want to ask another question, though. You say in some of your frequently asked questions that the Religious Freedom Amendment does not permit teachers or any other agent of the government to proselytize or to dictate that any person must join in prayer or to prescribe what prayer should be said. Where is that wording in here? Then what would keep the teacher from praying?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that this is not and should not be seen as a Washington, D.C. bashing bill. The delegate from Washington, D.C. is very passionate in representing her area and does a great job. I served on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. We worked with the Control Board, we worked with Marion Barry, we worked with a lot of people in the years I was on that committee and tried to be as sensitive as possible. And I believe that the gentlewoman would agree that there were lots and lots of rhetorical charges about what the big bad Republicans were going to do, and yet in the final analysis, much of what she pushed for was actually put into law on all aspects of the District. So I think it is very important to say that we have worked on a bipartisan basis and on a slow basis in terms of any reform effect in Washington, D.C. because, as one of the appropriators said, it is a free vote for us to the degree that nobody is going to answer to the people in Washington, D.C. except for the delegate. But I think rather than abusing that, the Republican Congress has taken all kinds of extra steps so, though, that we can be fair and so forth. This is not and is not designed to bash Washington, D.C. schools. However, let me say this. As the son of an educator, as the brother of an educator, as the brother-in-law of an educator, I come from a family of educators. And I believe one thing that I have learned around the family dinner table is that education should be dynamic. We should focus not on the system always, not on the teachers always, not on the structure, certainly not on the politics, but we should focus on the classroom, the child and the teacher, and that relationship. As we focus on it, we should ask, will this legislation or will this matter help that child out there achieve a better education so that he or she can go on to compete with children from Miami to New York to San Francisco to Stockholm to Tokyo? And I believe that if we ask those questions and put the children first, we can see that this is a reasonable approach. Mr. Speaker, this is not a hard ball approach. This is a choice. Think about it on a small business basis. If we said one particular type of small business would have the monopoly, there would be no more pet stores except for the ones that were in existence. There would be no more barber shops except for the ones in existence. There would be no more restaurants except for the ones that are in existence. People would say, ``What are you doing? That is going to kill the quality of the product,'' and I would agree with them. Why is education so special that we are afraid to put in that same element that drives the American economy of small businesses? Why is education above a little competition? I believe education is sacred enough that competition will enhance it. I think it is very important. Last night I had the occasion to go to a dinner for Gulfstream Aerospace, which Ted Forstmann is the Chairman of the Board, and they were receiving the Collier Award for Excellence in Aviation, and he talked about competition and he talked about being an American and, yes, the subject of the D.C. Scholarship Fund came up, which he is the author of. Mr. Speaker, I have and I will submit for the record testimony of one woman, and I am going to quote directly a Mrs. Jones, because she competed as one of the 8,000 people who wanted the 1,000 scholarships and she did not make it and she was crying. And then Mr. Forstmann called her later on and said instead of giving out a thousand scholarships, he was going to give out 1001 scholarships. Here is what she said: ``And when they tell me that I won, I was screaming and yelling and acting like a fool. You do not know how I prayed for that scholarship.'' That is what this is about. It is about this woman and her child. The question of constitutionality has come up. Let me say this, and I will submit this for the Record, Mr. Speaker, but the scholarship program fully satisfies the constitutional requirements under the first amendment. The Supreme Court has held that assistance such as the scholarships provided in this bill is permissible if, one, the choice where to use the assistance is made by the parents of the students, not the government; number two, the program does not create a financial incentive to choose private schools; and, number three, it does not involve the government in the schools' affairs. This, like the GI Bill, Pell Grants, and Federal day care assistance is a choice of funds where the choice is made by the recipients and not by the government. I will also submit a letter to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) Majority Leader, from Clint Bolick, the vice president of the Institute for Justice, where he cites five different cases, and I will submit this for the Record, Mr. Speaker: Myth: The voucher program violates the separation of church and state and is unconstitutional fact The scholarship program fully satisfies the constitutional requirements under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that assistance such as the scholarship provided for in the bill is permissible if: (1) the choice where to use assistance is made by the parents of students, not the government; (2) the program does not create a financial incentive to choose private schools; and (3) it does not involve the government in the school's affairs. The D.C. scholarship program fulfills these criteria. Like the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants and federal day care assistance, the choice of where the funds are expended is made not by the government but by the scholarship recipients. Because the amount of the scholarship is equal to or less than the cost of tuition, the program does not create a financial incentive to choose private schools. Scholarships are also made available under this legislation to pay costs of supplemental services for public school students, who already receive a free education. Moreover, the program involves only those regulations necessary to ensure that reasonable educational objectives are met, and does not create entanglement between the government and religious schools. The scholarship program does not impermissibly establish religion, but instead serves to expand educational opportunities for children who desperately need them.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, since Clinton has become President, the use of tobacco and drugs in our country has skyrocketed. I wanted to get this straight with my Democrat friends: What they want to do is penalize tobacco users by making them pay more for tobacco, but they want to subsidize drug users by having my middle-class taxpayers pay for their syringes. Think about this a minute. The hard-working folks back in Savannah, Georgia that I represent and all coastal Georgia wake up every morning at 5, 6 o'clock in the morning, bust their tail getting ready to get to work, kiss their kids good-bye, take them to school. The mom, the dad, they go back to their own offices. Meanwhile, back in Vancouver or other places outside of America, the Canadian taxpayers, their counterparts, are having to pay for drugs and syringes. Is this not great? Let us think about this for a minute. The days of moonshine, would we have fought moonshine by giving out clean and sterile jugs for moonshiners to put their products in? And what would Elliot Ness have said to Al Capone? ``We are going to bust you, but do it with clean jugs.'' Then what about gamblers? Should we start giving them clean playing cards, because certainly compulsive gamblers are subjected to germs on cards. What about compulsive eaters? Should we give them free but low- fat French fries? What has all this needle exchange done for people? Two and a half million needles were given out in Vancouver last year. What did it do? The HIV rate among participants is higher than those who do not participate. The death rate in the 10 years that the program has been in effect has skyrocketed. In 1988 there were 18 deaths that were drug related. In 1993, 200. What else happens? The highest crime rate in Vancouver is within the 2-block area of the needle exchange program. What did the drug czar, General McCaffrey, say? He said no needle exchange programs are going to be located in exclusive neighborhoods. I ask the Democrats, how many of them want a needle exchange program in their backyard? Is this really something that they want to say to their taxpayers? ``Look, right next door to my office is a needle exchange program, and this is good for you.'' Do my colleagues really want these things being handed out right next to them? No. We know they are going to go to some inner city area where disadvantaged people are already living in crime-infested, drug- infested areas. All this does is make the problem worse. I say it is a cruel joke. It is like giving a drowning man an anvil and saying, ``Here, stand on this. Maybe you could get your head above water.''

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time; and I rise in support of the rule. I really and truly believe that needle exchange programs are an unintended, very cruel thing to do to addicts. I believe it is the equivalent of giving an anvil to a drowning man and saying, well, here is something to stand on; maybe you can get your head above the water. I think the Democrats basically feel this way, despite the rhetoric we hear today. Because they really do not want to fund needle exchange programs. And, as they know, President Clinton does not want to either. So to say that needle exchange programs have a consensus among the Democrats is probably wrong, too. There is a lot to be discussed here. Let us look at the Vancouver case. Now, the Vancouver needle exchange program started 10 years ago. They have given out, since that time, millions and millions of needles, in fact, two-and-a-half million needles last year alone. During that period of time, HIV, among participants, is higher than the HIV rate of those who do not participate. The death rate has skyrocketed. In 1988, in Vancouver, there were about 18 drug-related deaths. In 1993, there were 200 drug-related deaths. In terms of property crime, in the two-block area around the needle exchange program, Vancouver has the highest property crime rate in the whole city. Does it work? I would say, well, maybe we cannot just prove everything because of the dismal Vancouver results, but the fact is that surely this scares people and gives us cause for alarm. The administration is very obsessed with tobacco. There are a lot of good ways, and there is the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Sanford Bishop) that I think would greatly reduce teen tobacco usage. But the administration and the Democrats are not talking about the Bishop Democrat bill because it does not raise money. What the tobacco debate still seems to be about is putting a tax on America's working poor and creating 17 new Federal Government agencies with hundreds of Washington bureaucrats who can run our lives. That is why the Democrats seem to be obsessed with tobacco. And while I am very concerned about it and while I think the Bishop bill has a lot to offer and I do plan to support it to crack down on teen smoking, what is interesting is that the Democrats really are not interested in that. They are just interested in growing the government and raising taxes, and because of that they have ignored the drug problem. During the Clinton administration, albeit teen smoking rates have gone up, drug usage rates have gone up a lot more. During that period of time, convictions have gone down. We need, as we crack down on the drug use and get active in the drug war, we need more convictions, we need more interdiction, and we need more treatment. Let me close with this sentence from the head of the Vancouver- Richmond Health Board who said, ``I can have all the needles I want, but they won't give me a single drug treatment bed.'' If we want to help people who are addicted to these horrible drugs, we need to give them treatment, not free needles.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, regular order. There is a chart up.

Mr. KINGSTON. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last week 19 House Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted in lock step to block immunity to four essential witnesses. Over 90 people in this investigation have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country, and the only way the Americans can get to the truth of it is to give immunity to some of the witnesses who have not fled the country. So why have the Democrats voted against it? Why do they want to block the investigation? Here is the letter from the Justice Department saying they had no problems given Irene Wu, Nancy Lee and Larry Wong immunity if they testify, but 19 House Democrats have blocked it. Why are they trying to obstruct justice? Maybe because of this. The President's own attorney general has appointed six independent counsels on this particular administration, and these independent counsels have brought results: the Whitewater investigation, eleven guilty pleas, three convictions, two indictments pending; the Espy investigation, six guilty pleas, six convictions, three indictments pending; the Cisneros investigation, one guilty plea, six indictments pending. Maybe that is why the 19 House Democrats voted lock step to keep the truth from the American people and obstruct justice in their own partisan way. Department of Justice, Washington, DC., April 16, 1998. Mr. Richard D. Bennett, Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's position on the granting of immunity to Larry Wong. The Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Mr. Wong. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter. Sincerely, Mark M. Richard, Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we hear quite often these days that Judge Starr is taking too long in his investigation of the White House and their various scandals. I would say one thing to my Democrat colleagues. Number one, obviously it would not take so long if we would have someone that would cooperate at the White House, but there is a lot of stonewalling and general shenanigans going on when asked even the straightest of questions. Looking at it historically, James Walsh spent 7 years investigating on Iran-Contra and spent about $50 million, and I do not believe got any convictions. The Democrats spent 8 years investigating HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce and the Democrats spent 7 years on a special investigation of Ray Donovan, Labor Secretary, and none of these brought convictions. In contrast, Judge Starr has spent 4 years and gotten 13 convictions, including an ex-Governor coincidentally from the President's home State, an Associate Attorney General, all kinds of high, very close advisors to the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest that there is guilt by association. Just because all of one's friends are in jail does not mean that they are guilty, and does not mean that they were with them when it happened. But let us not go around saying that Judge Starr is not making progress, because he certainly is.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this morning while reading H.R. 4-1-98, I found hidden deep in the Senate appropriations bill a $60,000 expenditure to install telephones in the Members-only Congressional bathrooms. That is right, $60,000 for Members to conduct business while doing their business. Emergency phones for emergencies. While Members have little time to waste, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean we have any more emergencies than the next guy. And, what is worse, this proposal calls for drilling holes in the historic mahogany shoeshine chair, which was donated to the House of Representatives by the Woodrow Wilson estate. Mr. Speaker, this is not good waste management. Let us see this proposal, H.R. 4-1-98, for the joke that it is, or we would be a bunch of April fools.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this year, millions of Americans will buy new cars. We will go on to car lots and select cars of our choice, and be told how much they cost. But think about it for a minute, how complicated it must be to price a car; tires, computer systems, the radios and speaker systems and bumpers. And then there are the labor costs involved in it, and the liability for the insurance, and the utilities for the factory. It is indeed a very, very complicated process to bring a car to your lot nearest to you in your hometown and say that car costs $31,286. It is a miracle of the capitalist system. Now think in terms of what it is to pay your taxes. Have you paid your taxes yet? Probably not. Why not? Because it is too complicated. You know it is going to take hours and hours. You will have to sacrifice two or three evenings of your busy schedule, all to figure out what you owe Uncle Sam. Why can the IRS not take a lesson from the motor companies and the private sector and just have clarity and simplicity, so that when you and I go to pay our taxes on April 15th, even though we might not like the amount, at least we understand what it is?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, not since Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon and Mod Squad was on our television screens in the houses of America, the New York Mets were on their way back to one of the best come-back stories in baseball history, have we had a balanced budget or surplus in the budget. But it is true, this year we are on our way to a budget surplus. So how does Washington react? The President goes out and breaks last year's budget agreement and calls for $56 billion in new spending. And there you go, status quo in Washington. Why do we have this balanced budget to begin with? Well, a couple things. Number one, we have slowed down the growth of government spending. Number two, we have a robust economy. And number three, sadly to say, we have put the Social Security surplus in with general revenues. I believe, as do most Republican Members of Congress, if you want to put Social Security first and protect and preserve it, not just for the current generation of retirees, but for future generations, that you must separate the Social Security surplus and take it off budget and put it in a true trust fund with a fire wall from general revenue. I believe that is the number one thing this Congress should be doing.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, how absurd are things in America today. Try this. Today we will vote on a bill that requires employees who work for a company to actually spend 50 percent of their daily job working for that company. You heard me. Under this legislation, if you work for Wal-Mart, you must spend half your weekly 40 hours, 20 hours a week, actually working for Wal-Mart. Think about that. When I was a kid, my dad made me cut the grass. What would he have done if I cut half of it and then we went fishing? That would have been a lively conversation. What if you were at a restaurant and the waitress served half the people that you are eating with. Or what if a football player on a breakaway punt return crosses the 50-yard line and stops for a coffee break? The idea is ridiculous. But listen to this. The Democrats oppose it. H.R. 3246 is not even a reality check, but a halfway measure to correct a half-baked idea that a half-brained Washington bureaucrat botched all the way.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 227.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lucille Harris lives in the First District of Georgia. She is 69 years old. For the past 3 years she has been somewhat worried about her health care, affectionately known as Medicare, because she knows that in April of 1995 the Medicare trustees said Medicare is going bankrupt and that Congress needed to act to preserve and protect it. We tried for many years to protect it and preserve it; but, unfortunately, politics got in the way. Then, last year, we finally came up with a bipartisan solution which the House passed, the Senate passed and the President signed into law. We did do some good Medicare reform. We gave our seniors a choice of plans. We cut fraud and abuse. We increased spending from $5,000 to $7,000 per person. In addition to that, we said that States are required to cover people who have fallen through the cracks; to come up with something for people who were not Medicare-eligible, like the 51-year-old man from Vermont that I talked to last night; people who cannot get coverage through the standard health care market. The bill required that States come up with plans, each State, to protect these people. The second thing that it did along that line is it said that we would set up a bipartisan Medicare committee; and the bipartisan committee, which is chaired by a Clinton-appointed Democrat Senator, would address the long-term solvency needs of Medicare as more and more baby boomers retire and use this coverage. We decided it was more important to protect Medicare for the next generation, not just the next election. So, Mr. Speaker, having made this great and difficult bipartisan progress, why is it that the President has now ignored that legislation and his own commission? Why is he willing to risk Medicare because of election year politics? Why is it that if it is profitable to lower Medicare eligibility and it does not cost the system, why is it the private sector is not already providing that coverage? Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the President is again playing politics with our seniors' very important health care plan. We need to protect and to preserve it. We do not need to play politics with it. Medicare deserves bipartisan support. People like Mrs. Harris and millions and millions of Americans, perhaps one's mother or father or grandparents, they deserve better. Mr. President, do not monkey around with our seniors' health care. Let us continue to work on a bipartisan basis to protect Medicare. Let us see what the bipartisan commission with the President's chairman has to say before we go changing the plan and incurring unnecessary risks to our seniors' health care plan.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last year 67-year-old Sarah Rutherford of Brunswick, Georgia was very distraught about her health care, because she knew that in April 1995 the Clinton Medicare trustees said Medicare was going to go bankrupt if we did not do anything about it. After many struggles in Congress we finally passed a bipartisan bill that cut down on Medicare fraud, gave seniors more choices, and increased spending on Medicare for people like Ms. Rutherford from $5,000 to $7,000. Most importantly it created a bipartisan tax force to look at Medicare not just for the next election but for the next generation, to correct Medicare for the next 5 or 10 years. This bipartisan commission is working and working very hard. Now in an apparent desperation attempt to get the focus off the White House, the President has come up with a new entitlement on Medicare to say, and listen to this, in his own words, he will be qualified for Medicare in 3 or 4 years. When the President of the United States retires, he will be able to go on Medicare. I say, ``Mr. President, go ahead and retire, but stay away from Ms. Rutherford's Medicare.''

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I have been listening to this debate. It has been a good debate. I want all Members to be reminded of something the gentleman from Ohio just said. He said that we are here to represent these agencies. I think that that is true, that that side is here to represent those agencies, the Washington bureaucracies. I think it is very important because it not only defines this debate, but a central difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Because we are here to represent the taxpayers, the American people, we see this as a bureaucrat reality check. ``Bureaucracies, you have a budget of $1.7 trillion. We want to know where you are going with the money, how you are getting there, is it being done properly or not?'' I was here when we started the Reinvent Government and served on a bipartisan panel. I found out that reinventing the government is more than a photo op or a PR tour. You cannot just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk. There comes times, yes, for some heavy lifting. What we are saying is, ``Do what the private sector does.'' ``Isn't that horrible? The government bureaucracies whom we love on this side must do what the private sector has to do. This is horrible.'' Can my colleagues imagine Coca-Cola working or operating without a mission statement? Can my colleagues imagine Mr. Ivester, the chairman of Coca-Cola, saying, ``What we need to do is follow the Post Office example.'' Or could my colleagues imagine Gates at Microsoft saying, ``I know. Let's follow the IRS when it comes to computer technology.'' The private sector is not going to do that. All we are saying to government agencies is, do what the private sector does. Let us put it in terms for the defenders of the status quo; let us put it in terms of the middle class. You are sitting around the kitchen table, you have finally paid off your credit card for one month, but you still have a debt, in this case it is $4.5 trillion. So you have to ask yourself, is it cheaper to buy eggs by the dozen or should we buy them individually? Should I wear the clothes and wash them or should I just discard them once they are dirty? When my car needs a tuneup, should I trade it in or should I tune it up and keep going with it? This is what middle-class America has to do every single day, every single paycheck, every single month. They simply have to ask themselves the questions which we are saying to these high, exalted Washington bureaucrats: ``Look, you've got to go through things because we're still $4.5 trillion in debt.'' We are delighted that the United States Congress has played a role in balancing the budget, but it is not good enough. We still pay about $240 billion a year, almost more than we spend on the military, just in interest on the national debt. I think we owe it to the people. I am on the Appropriations Committee. When a government bureaucracy comes to ask for their share of the $1.7 trillion, I want to know, are you doing it well? Are you doing it efficiently? Can you do it better? Can it be farmed out to a nonprofit organization or to a for-profit organization? Could it be done locally, could it be done on the State level? These are important questions. That is why we are here to represent the taxpayers, not the bureaucracies.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we need a three-strikes-and-you-are-out law in Washington, and we can change this administration real quickly. And here is what I mean: Strike number one: 1990, the Congressional Bipartisan Budget deal broken by President Clinton; 1993, the President sets his own budget deal, broken in 1994 and 1995; now 1997, there was yet another deal, and Clinton is out to break it by $56 billion. Three strikes; you are out. That should be what we can do to turn the budget around and turn around our fiscal picture. Our spending right now is $268 billion higher than during the Carter administration after you adjust it for inflation. Reagan cut the budget by 15 percent, and I am talking about domestic discretionary spending, but now it is up 23 percent over that. We are very proud that the budget is about to be balanced, but that is no excuse for continuing to spend. And that is what is going on. Three strikes and you are out. Stick with your word, Mr. President. Let us surprise everybody.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton, Miller and company amendment. I think it is just a fig leaf designed to put us all in court and take away a lot of power from States. If Members are for English first as a language, as an issue, then they need to oppose it and they need to support Solomon. It is not unusual for us to demand such things and try to amend bills and so forth to do what we want to. There is nothing unusual about it. Oklahoma and New Mexico were both required to have State constitutions providing that public school education be conducted in English. Arizona was required to guarantee that its executive and legislative officials could write, speak and understand English. That is all the Solomon language is trying to do. Culturally it is trying to go a little bit beyond the language question. I think one of the things that has inspired the Solomon language is the situation with Quebec, north of our border. In 1995 Quebec had a vote and came very close to receiving a majority for independence. It was a vote of 49.4 percent, 10 percent higher than it had been 15 years earlier. It is very possible that in the future, Quebec will secede from Canada. Is there any correlation between Puerto Rico and Quebec? Let us look at it. What do they have in common? Both had their own languages and cultures long before becoming part of English-speaking majority nations, should that happen. Both had populations in which the overwhelming majority speak a language different from that of the majority of the rest of the Nation, and both have political movements that focus on independence as the key to maintaining a separate culture and linguistic identity. Both have economic elites that speak English while the more economically disadvantaged citizens do not. It is quite possible that if we look at the number, 82 percent of the people of Quebec are French speakers, 98 percent of the people of Puerto Rico are Spanish speakers. The strong cultural identity which we are all aware of in this House, and the strong cultural identity that we want the good American citizens of Puerto Rico to maintain, is at risk here. This is a statehood vote. This is not just let us see how you feel about it. This is starting the car and pulling it out in the driveway. You do not do that unless you are going to take a trip, Mr. Chairman. This is a statehood vote. It will radically change the culture in Puerto Rico and lead to a lot of division in the United States over it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that would require the supermajority of 75 percent. The reason is that we have heard many times that no other States have had to have this requirement. But no other States have been so apparently divided on the question of becoming a State; no other territories, if you will. Mr. Chairman, I believe that 75 percent is conservative. I believe it is a minimum level. It would bother me that we would have a territory that wants to become a State with less than 75 percent. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be 90 or 95 percent of the people wanting to join officially as a State into the great United States of America. I believe that the 75 percent is there because the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and many Members of Congress realize that this is a controversial measure. It is a measure that is dividing the island of Puerto Rico. We do not know if it is going to be yes, we do not know if it is going to be no, but both sides agree that it is going to be a very, very close vote. I think it would be a shame to admit a new State to the Union where we do not have at least 75 percent of the people who enthusiastically are willing and want all the rights and privileges of being a State.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, along the campaign trail, Republicans said that if the Republican Party became the majority, that we would pass a legislative agenda called the Contract with America within the first 100 days of the 1995 session. Washington pundits and the typical status quo Washington liberals said, number one, they would not; number two, they could not; and then when the process was going on, they said they should not. All the Democrats fought it, kicking and screaming and yelling, saying it was going to lead to economic disaster, and all voted against welfare reform and voted against tax cuts for the middle class. What happened? Within 100 days, the Contract with America passes, and what is the result? In 1995, the deficit, $164 billion; 1996, the deficit, $107 billion; 1997, the deficit, $22 billion; and in 1998, just announced, a surplus of $8 billion. Where are all those Democrats who said that the Contract with America was going to be an economic disaster, who fought tax cuts for the middle class? The proof is that the budget is balanced, it worked, and I hope next time they do not fight us.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of fanfare about the budget and the surplus, and we hear that the deficit has been wiped out. When we take a close look at this, we find the only reason why we can say the budget is balanced is because we take $100 billion in Social Security surplus and apply it to the general fund. Now, if we take that out of there, there is still a deficit; that we are still spending more money than we bring in if we pull Social Security out of it. The reason why this is important is I agree with those who want to put Social Security first. I think it is very important to preserve Social Security, to protect it and to separate it from the rest of the group of money. But the President, as we know, has proposed over $100 billion in new spending. Now, is it not coincidental that we have a $100 billion surplus in Social Security and the President is pushing $100 billion in new spending? It is total fraud. We are not putting Social Security first. We are not protecting it when we are saying let us go out with a whole bunch of big government spending programs. I think we should be truthful and honest with America's seniors, protect Social Security and not increase government spending.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, put Social Security first. This is the battle cry of certain leading politicians, and I agree with that. But how can we say put Social Security first, and then go out and introduce a whole bunch of new spending programs? The way our budget is done, Social Security is really not a separate trust fund. Right now Social Security has an overpayment in it of about $100 billion. When we add that overpayment to the deficit, we come up with the sum of zero. So let us be honest. Social Security, if taken off budget, still leaves us with a deficit. It is very important for all of us, young and old, to realize that; that when we say the budget is balanced, all we are saying is Social Security is part of the general fund. If we are going to put Social Security first, we sure do not do that and then turn right around, as the President has done, and introduce $100 billion in new spending programs. Because that money comes right out of Social Security. I am sick and tired of Social Security being the political football and used to scare all the folks who are on it in the United States of America. We need to be honest about it. I believe we need to personalize Social Security, we need to have an open dialogue, and we need to acknowledge that, right now, the way the accounting is done it is being used to offset the deficit.