Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. According to our calculations it is funded at 7.4 million participants and that it is fully funded. Now does WIC have any leftover money, or are they scraping the bottom right now?

Mr. KINGSTON. They have a $200 million carryover, and so the discussion of saying that there are children starving and because of this we have got to give the benefit of the doubt is totally specious, totally emotional, total demagoguery. The children are not starving. The only thing we are going to do here is increase the bureaucracy on the backs of the American farmer. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, with all the discussion about balancing the budget and providing tax relief, people are concerned. Well, why is it necessary and is it even consistent to give tax relief while we are trying to balance the budget? After all, people are paying taxes, more revenues are coming in, and it is easier to balance the budget that way. But there is a part of that argument that I think is overlooked if we look at just first glance. What I am speaking of is, if we give people tax relief, we are going to have economic growth, we are going to have more jobs, more people working, more people paying tax revenues, and this growth will decrease the deficit faster than just mere cutbacks in spending. We need to have both, but spurring economic growth is the key part of deficit reduction. Let us look at the picture of taxes. In the 1950's, the average middle-class Federal tax burden was about 6 percent. In the 1970's, it was 16 percent. In 1994, it was 23 percent. But by 1995, the total tax burden was up to 39 percent, 24 percent of that being in Federal income tax alone. That is up from 5 percent in the 1950's. Members can see what a huge portion of family income taxes take. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the higher the tax rate of middle-class Americans, the less time they have together as families, because when we had a 39-percent tax burden, what that is saying is that the second income of the family just goes to pay taxes. Mom and dad are both working. The second income goes to pay the taxes, 39 percent. Do your own math in your own house. The tax relief that we are trying to get passed and we are working on a bipartisan basis with the President on it, gives tax relief to people who earn between $20,000 and $75,000. Seventy-six percent of the tax relief package goes to middle-income families making between $20,000 and $75,000. Of that, 90 percent of it goes toward education, the HOPE scholarship to make it more affordable through a deduction program and a tax credit program to send kids to college. Then $150 billion of it goes to the $500-per-child tax credit. There is a big disagreement at this point with the President on it. We are trying to work out our differences. The President wants to give that $500 tax credit to people who do not pay Federal income taxes, whereas the Republican plan says now you only give tax relief to those who pay income taxes. It is a very important thing; because if you take a woman, say a single mother named Susan, she has a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old, under the Republican plan, Susan would get a $1,000 tax relief check from the government, $1,000 less in taxes. Under the Clinton plan, she would get zero, because the President's proposal is to say that once the child turns 12, no tax relief. But what is worse is if you had a man out there who had three or four kids and he was not paying Federal income taxes, he could get $2,000 or $2,500 worth of tax relief even though he is not paying the taxes. He still, if he is eligible, is going to get all kinds of welfare-type benefits, like Medicaid and public housing and welfare cash benefits from the DFACS or temporary assistance to needy families. He will get food stamps, WIC, and so forth. But the check comes from Susan and her 14-year-old and her 16-year-old. That is not fair to single working women around America. If you want to know more about this tax program, I would recommend that you look it up on the International Web. Get beyond the Republican versus Democrat debate. The Democrats have a web page, too. I do not know what their web page number is, but this is the Republican web page. If you will look it up, it is http://hillsource.house.gov and you can figure out what the tax relief would be for you. Again, why is it important to give middle-class Americans tax relief? Because if you have more money in your pocket because we as a Federal Government have confiscated less of it, what Susan will do with her $1,000 is she will buy more shoes, go out to eat more, maybe buy more clothes, do whatever, she will have more consumable income. When she does that, because 58 million Americans will be able to do that, businesses will expand, jobs will be created, less people will be on welfare, more people will be paying taxes and just like Kennedy and Reagan proved, tax cuts actually increase the revenue because of the economic growth.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I know we were talking about this earlier, and I wanted to give an example of a woman, say Susan, she makes $20,000 a year. She has a 14-year-old and a 16-year- old. Now under the Republican plan she would be getting $1,000 tax credit for those children. Under the Clinton plan she would get zero. But who would get the money instead is somebody who is not paying income taxes. And that person who is not paying income taxes may be already receiving public housing assistance, free health care for the kids, Medicaid, food stamps for the family, WIC for the children, supplemental security income, possibly the earned income tax credit, public assistance/ welfare benefits, worth anywhere from $10 to $18 an hour. In addition to all those public assistance benefits, under the Clinton liberal Democrat plan they would get another $1,000 check because of having two children or children under 12 years old. And it is not punitive to say let us give the income tax credit to those who earn income, rather than let us just make it one more welfare benefit. It was interesting, in the Washington Times today, it did say on the front page, Clinton admits that it is an expansion of welfare. So I think my colleague raised a good point. This tax relief proposal, the intent of it is not to expand welfare. The intent of it is to give tax relief to middle-income Americans.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is very important for us to realize what we are doing with American farm policy. Two percent of Americans are farmers, and yet they feed all 100 percent of us, plus many, many other people throughout the globe. Our farm bill always gets criticized for the research, for the programs, and so forth. And yet within those programs is a very strong delivery system. As convoluted as it may seem, so often it makes sense when the fact that very, very few people in America go to bed hungry, and it makes even more sense when we realize that through the international programs, less go to bed hungry than they would without these programs. We have had skirmishes. We are going to have skirmishes on peanuts, on sugar, on tobacco, on the market access programs, and on a number of other things. Yet, through it all, we must remember that we are feeding Americans with this bill and, finally, we are doing it at less dollars than we have ever in the past.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk to my colleagues tonight about taxes. I think it is very, very important to understand why the working middle class families of America need tax relief. Here is a chart that I hope everyone can see that shows in the 1950's the average American family, of average income, paid about 6 percent Federal income tax. In 1994, it was 23 percent Federal tax burden. Today, the Federal tax burden, 1995, is 39 percent. As my colleagues can see, the working middle class families are paying higher taxes than ever before in history. We need tax relief. Because the less taxes people pay, the less taxes families pay, the more time they can spend with each other. One of the key benefits of that is so that moms and dads can spend time with their children and impart information and help raise them. Now what does our tax relief bill do? Our tax relief bill gives 76 percent of the tax relief to middle-income families making between 20 and $75,000. That is this big chunk right here. That is who is getting the tax relief. That is who needs tax relief. I think that we should get over class envy, but it is very important to point out that most of the tax relief, 76 percent, goes to people earning or families earning between 20 and $75,000. Now over a 10-year period of time, if you look at the tax relief, you can see that 90 percent of the tax relief goes to family and education or families for educational purposes. Seventy-five billion dollars in tax relief for educational uses over a 10-year period, and $150 billion over 10 years for the $500 per child tax credit; that is a huge tax reduction, and it all goes for the right purposes. Now we got a big debate going on that you may hear about, about the tax bill, and that is why I invite Members of Congress and members of the public to look this up on the Internet. Find out what the family tax relief plan could mean to your family. I am going to say what the Internet number is. It is http:// hillsource.house.gov, and there is also a Senate page that you can get too, but today you can look up on the web page exactly what this tax relief bill could mean to you for your $500 per child tax credit, HOPE scholarship, for your children to enter an education, your IRA dream savings account expansion. There is a lot to it, and I would urge members of the public to look it up on the Internet. And, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes.

Mr. KINGSTON. Yes, and it is very interesting that the gentleman will point out that the President is working with the Republican Party on a bipartisan basis to give this middle class tax relief. There are Members, liberal extremists, on one fringe element of his party who is against tax relief for the middle class, but for the most part this is a bipartisan middle class tax relief bill. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely, and I know in my First District that I represent of Georgia it will give tax relief, we figure, to about 300,000 people in the coastal Georgia area alone. But you know the more money you have as a wage earner, the more money you have in your pocket, because we as a confiscatory government take less of it, that means you are going to spend more. You are going to buy more shoes, more shirts, more records, you are going to go out to eat more. When you do, businesses will expand because of the demand. When they expand, they create more jobs. When they create more jobs, more people are working, more people are paying taxes, fewer people are on welfare, and cutting taxes, therefore, is very consistent with the goal of deficit reduction.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Chabot amendment, and here is why. As my colleagues know, we are kind of getting involved in what policy should be or, I guess, what is good and what makes sense and so forth. But we should remember that just because something is a good program does not mean that it should not be recognized and supported locally as a good program, as opposed to Washington has to do everything because if we do not do it, it means we do not love humanity or people or little children or sex and gender studies or some of the other valuable projects the NEH gets involved in. But just imagine this, Mr. Chairman: If a person were on a diet, if they were on a 6-month diet to lose 30 pounds, and they got to the fourth month and they had lost 28 pounds, would they stop dieting? As my colleagues know, this person is ahead of their time schedule, they had not reached their goal yet. Would they quit exercising and start eating ice cream again and say, ``Hey, look''? The situation that we are in right now is similar to that fiscally, Mr. Chairman. We have reduced the deficit greatly. The Wall Street Journal said yesterday we may have the deficit projection as low as $45 billion, and I want Members of the House to think about this: If we can get within $45 billion of balancing the budget, is it not incumbent on us as Members of Congress to do everything we can to go ahead and push toward that zero, to reach the goal? If we were on the diet, reach it in 4 months instead of 6 months? As my colleagues know, this money, this appropriation for NEH, it is within the budget. But that does not mean it is good. That does not mean that everything about the budget is perfect. What is in here that is so necessary? I think we should look at this question: Are our projects necessary for the Federal Government? Not just are they nice and are they pleasant, and does it make us feel intellectual or cultural or whatever. And I know there are Members who do feel cultural when they see that $400,000 went to Doran Ross at UCLA for, quote, ``The Art of Being Kuna: The Expressive Culture of the San Blas Islands, Panama,'' $400,000. Not many constituents in my district make that kind of money. Or how about this one: $108,000 to Howard Kushner of San Diego State University for ``The History of Tourette's Syndrome.'' How about this? A grant of $135,000 to Edward English of the University of Notre Dame for ``Sex and Gender in the Middle Ages.'' Boy, a burning issue in my district. This is from the year 1150 to 1450, for those of my colleagues who are interested in getting a copy of it. I do not know if it will apply, but it was a good old 5-week summer junket for 24 college students. How about this one? A grant of $201,000 to Laurie Kahn-Leavitt of Filmmakers Collaborative for ``A Midwife's Tale: Discovering the World of Martha Ballard.'' Now has anybody read that? I mean all those defenders of NEH, tell me, was Martha Ballard's story a good one? I missed it. As my colleagues know, my kids are dying to see ``Jurassic Park'' or the sequel, ``Lost World'', but we have not seen Martha Ballard. A grant of $201,000; again, not many people in my district are making money like that. Or how about this: $34,500 to Carol Maier of Kent State for ``Delirium and Destiny.'' Well, that is a good one. What happened to private initiatives? What happened to spending State or local money if it is so important? As my colleagues know, we are not really arguing here if NEH is good or bad. What we are really saying: Is it necessary, is it necessary to borrow children's money to pay for such projects? I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to have this program, and as long as we are $5.4 trillion in debt we should be able to ask ourselves this question: If this was coming out of my pocketbook, if it was coming out of my wallet, would I spend the money this way, or am I just doing it because it is taxpayers' money? I would say to the Members of the House, If you can say yes, this is how I would, in fact, spend my money, than certainly they want to vote against the Chabot amendment. But if they are doing it just because somebody else is paying for it, think about the $5 trillion debt, think about the children who will be inheriting so much of this debt and vote for the Chabot amendment. And join, in doing that, the National Taxpayer's Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for A Sound Economy, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, National Tax Limitation Committee and Capitol Watch. Below are a few examples of how the NEH is wasting tax dollars. When the average salary in America is approximately $20,000 a year, does it really make sense that the taxpayers are giving: $150,000 to Jacquelynn Baas at UC Berkely for ``Interpretive Programs for `Face of the Gods: Art and Altars of the African Diaspora' ''; $400,000 to Doral H. Ross at UCLA for ``The Art of Being Kuna: The Expressive Culture of the San Blas Islands, Panama''; $108,000 to Howard I. Kushner of San Diego State University for ``History of Tourette's Syndrome''; $140,000 to Devon G. Pena of Colorado College for ``Upper Rio Grande Hispano Farms: A Cultural and Natural History of Land Ethics in Transition, 1850-1994''; $135,000 to Edward D. English of the University of Notre Dame for ``Sex and Gender in the Middle Ages, 1150-1450,'' supporting a five-week summer institute for 24 college teachers; $201,000 to Laurie Kahn-Leavitt of Filmmakers Collaborative for ``A Midwife's Tale: Discovering the World of Martha Ballard'' to support production of a test reel for a feature length documentary film on the life and world of 18th-century midwife Martha Ballard; $34,000 to Mary Ann Smart of SUNY research Foundation/Stony Brook Main Campus for ``Representations of Gender and Sexuality in Opera,'' ``to support a conference to examine new ways to understand the cultural context of opera texts and music, focusing on how new musicological work on gender can be applied to the study of opera''; $210,742 to Charles V. Blatz of the University of Toledo for ``Humanities 2000: A Multi-Year Collaboration to Strengthen the Humanities Foundations''; $34,500 to Carol Maier of Kent State University for ``Delirium and Destiny''; and $114,000 to Catholic University to support the preparation of a database of indices for the Gregorian chants found in ten major manuscripts, to be disseminated on diskettes and on the Internet? Among many, many other such projects, remember, too, that: The American history standards released by the NEH have been widely criticized as very flawed. Former NEH chairman Lynne Cheney has publicly disavowed the project. Indeed, she recently called for an end to federal funding for the NEH altogether. Current NEH head Sheldon Hackney is spending $1.7 million to promote a ``national conversation.'' Over the objections of his own National Council, Hackney pushed through a ``national conversation'' television program. ``Do you really think voters in your home state will understand why these programs were killed?'' the NEH lobby asks in its most recent ad. A better question might be, why were the programs funded by the federal government in the first place? They are worthy programs, surely, but why do they need federal tax dollars at this time of massive deficits?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, in the narrow scope of an appropriation bill and the accompanying rules, the substitute, which I stand in support of, works out a good compromise. No. 1, the Porter-Kennedy amendment eliminates a very important maintenance account, maintenance for fire, maintenance for recreational purposes. This restores it but does not increase it except for to the President's level, No. 1. No. 2, it puts in $25 million, reducing the amount for purchase credits by half. Now $25 million, and listen to this, listen to this very carefully, is less than the NEA allocations for California and New York. That is what it is; yes, very, very important for small timber purchases. What this money will do is if there are two roads, but they need to build a third road to get to the trees, what happens is when the logger builds that road, the money also goes to the first and second road, and so three roads are maintained by, as our jobs, as are the forests. Vote for the substitute; it is a very good compromise.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman is correct. Let me do what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] has suggested and put a face on this. Here is a single woman, and I am going to call her Mrs. Smith, this is a real person in my district who has a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old child. Under the Republican plan, she will get a $1,000 tax credit. Under the Clinton proposal she will get zero, because children over 12 years old do not get a tax credit, or their parents are not entitled. But instead, that $1,000 of income tax credit that she would be receiving goes to somebody who is not paying income tax; who in many cases is somebody whose children are getting WIC benefits, the nutritional program; possibly getting Medicaid; free health insurance; possibly getting food stamps, in addition to what they are getting; and probably qualifying for any number of college education scholarships, which are very, very important. But the point is, and the gentleman has said this, that for the poor there are a lot of benefits already. Our tax plan does not transfer any benefit plan from the poor to give to the rich whatsoever. But instead, the President is proposing to take from single mothers child tax credits, single working mother child tax credits, and giving it to people who are not working. Under the Republican plan, 41 million children and their parents will get tax relief. Under the Clinton plan, only 30 million children will get tax relief. That is a huge difference for America's middle class working families.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Missouri is about to kill me if I do not correct my earlier statement, that it was Zacchaeus and not Nicodemas, Luke, chapter 19. I stand corrected. I want to also say to the gentleman from Michigan, when we came here it was socialized medicine. It was the largest tax increase in history. It was expansion of the Hatch Act. It was motor voter. Everything was big government, big government this. We have stopped the ball from rolling to the left. We have stopped the onward intrusion of the big government. Have we stopped it as abruptly as we would like to? No. But we are moving in that direction. We believe this tax relief bill is the first and very, very significant step in returning to the American middle class people money that is theirs, that the government should not be taking from them.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] suggesting that most liberals in fact work for government, therefore, have not the slightest clue what it is like to be in the business world? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting?

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, if you will remember, the President ran on the platform in 1992 of a middle-class tax cut, and although he had a Democrat Senate and Congress, not one bill was introduced to give middle-class tax relief. However, reaching across the aisle, reaching over the hard left and the Democrat Party, he has found a partner to work with. In a bipartisan basis we have a middle- class tax cut, and if you will look at this chart, 76 percent of the tax relief goes to people and households making below $75,000. That is the vast area right here. Now what is not shown on this chart is that if you are making $200,000, 1.2 percent of the tax relief goes to you. The majority of it clearly goes to hard middle-class working families. I know the gentleman from Michigan----

Mr. KINGSTON. It is confusing to me, too.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would suggest that most of the government employees do not understand what the small businesses that provide most of the jobs in America are up against each day because of increased Government bureaucracy and regulations, and they do not understand why businesses might need a more favorable tax code in order to create more jobs for working people.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman is finished with his point, I wanted to add on that a little bit, because one of the disappointing things is that the President and many of the liberals want to actually give the $500-per-child tax credit to folks who do not pay taxes.

Mr. KINGSTON. But this tax relief plan is about the middle class and creating jobs, and what we have is, a lot of liberals are against that and therefore they are against job creation.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, and, therefore, they create less jobs.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is only 10:30 and the Democrats are already confused. No surprise, but usually they make it to 11 o'clock. Here is the idea of nothing for the poor. Let us examine the case of a person who is poor who does not work. Their children get WIC, their children and they get food stamps, they get Medicaid, they get public transportation, they get college education, they get free housing. Now on top of that the Clinton Democrat liberals want to take $500 per child tax credit from a single working woman with a 14-year-old and 16- year-old, and instead of giving that single working woman a $1,000 tax credit for her 14-year-old and 16-year-old, they want to say no, she does not get any of it, and give it to somebody who is not working and who is not paying taxes. There is no discussion here about the poor not getting anything. What we are discussing here is taking the money from middle class working people and giving it to those who are not paying taxes. This is a tax credit. Tax credit goes to those who pay taxes. We are not debating taking away public assistance benefits which are secure, which will continue to go to the poor.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what if we were to go on a 6-month diet to lose 30 pounds and we got to the 4th month and we had already lost 28 pounds? Would we quit exercising and quit dieting because we were so far ahead of schedule? We had not reached our goal yet but we were way ahead of the game. The United States Congress and the American people are in that situation right now with deficit reduction. An article today in The Washington Post shows that the deficit, the projected deficit may go down to $45 billion, which is way lower than the expectation. Now, what this means is that Congress and the American people may not have to wait until the year 2002 to see a balanced budget. We may see it a lot sooner, even potentially as soon as next year. So how do we react? Well, all over America people will be very pleased to hear this. But how do certain big-government liberal types in Washington react? Hey, we are ahead of schedule; that means we can relax and we do not have to cut so many programs and we can spend more money. We can have more pork back home. It is very good news to some of them. I would say to my colleagues that, if we change from the path of having fiscal responsibility and lower spending, then we will get back into the hole that we are just now digging out of. A balanced budget to the folks back home is not about numbers, it is about opportunities, it is about lower interest rates. Lower interest rates on a home mortgage of $75,000 over a 30-year period means we would pay $37,000 less. On a $15,000 car loan, lower interest rates means that we would pay about $900 less. It means that college education is more affordable because student loans are lower. Also, Mr. Speaker, it means taxes are lower because we do not have to spend so much on deficit spending. Now, the Republican plan to lower and give middle class tax relief is very simple. Under that, 76 percent, and I have a chart, Mr. Speaker, but 76 percent of the tax relief goes to people, households, making below $75,000 a year. This is what a middle class tax cut is all about. Now, a lot of folks say, well, this tax cut only benefits the rich. Well, that is true if the definition of rich is people who make below $75,000. And incidentally, the interesting way the Clinton administration and some of the liberals get there is by playing games with paychecks, by adding to it, for example, the rental value of a house. So if a person makes $45,000 a year, under the Democrat liberal formula that individual is making over $75,000 a year, so they can say this tax cut does not apply to them. I would say this. If we go try to get a loan or buy a house based on the numbers the President tells us we are making, it will not work. Ninety percent of this tax relief goes to families and to education. I am from Georgia. We have the HOPE scholarship. The HOPE scholarship is for students who make a B or above in State schools, and they have their tuition paid for. The national HOPE scholarship is not as generous as the Georgia HOPE scholarship, but it is still very good, because if students and children want to compete in the world today, they have to have a college education. The Republican plan makes college education more affordable. Tax relief at this time is proper. Why is tax relief important? Because the more money Americans have in their pocket, because the Government is taking less out of it, the more shoes they will buy, the more clothes they will buy, the more shirts, the more cars, and so forth. And when Americans do that, small businesses respond by expanding. When businesses expand, more jobs are created. When more jobs are created, more people go to work, less people are on welfare, and more people are paying taxes. Is tax relief consistent with deficit reduction? Absolutely. It certainly is, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we need it. Because the easiest way to balance the budget is to have economic growth.