Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman from Arizona has joined us. I yield to Mr. Hayworth.

Mr. KINGSTON. This was a woman whose husband went because of the Commander in Chief sending them into harm's way.

Mr. KINGSTON. I hate to interrupt this great letter but are you saying to me that a war hero, right after Memorial Day, was depicted by the U.S. Army for being careless and irresponsible because he was trying to save children's lives?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. No, no.

Mr. KINGSTON. And is it not true, if the minority is not here, then we can request unanimous consent to use the balance of the time if the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] does not give a 5-minute request?

Mr. KINGSTON. Is it not true we are about to end the 5-minute session?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Because not one household in America would think of economics----

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield for a second, it is not a difference between the two parties, it is a difference between Washington, been in town too long, status quo liberals and the rest of the United States of America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of good arguments today on both sides. I know the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is very sincere in his beliefs, as are the other folks who have spoken with their various issues. We have heard debate, though, that I think should be categorized in two areas, one is philosophical and one is specific to the amendment. Philosophically, we do have a debate of the U.S. role in the tobacco industry. What is the proper Government role? The Government, for example, spends millions of dollars on the ASSIST program and on the DARE program, which are, among other things, tobacco-oriented education programs that teach people, students, not to get involved with illegal drugs and then some of the legal, I do not know if they are drugs, but alcohol and tobacco and other habits that young people can, all people can fall into. We spend lots of money on these programs and we do spend money in an indirect fashion on tobacco, yet we also have heard many times that that program brings in $1.4 billion in revenue. So it is certainly not a perfect program the way it is handled right now, and yet, as we look at farm programs in general, none of them are perfect and often we do have some inconsistencies in what we are trying to do in the big picture. But if we get away from the philosophical debate, and I think we should have the philosophical debate, for example, one of the things that has not been brought up, in my opinion, is the freedom argument. I think that people in America do have a freedom to engage in smoking or not to engage in smoking, a freedom to overeat or not to overeat, a freedom to exercise or not to exercise. And I would also submit to my colleagues that the statistics that I read, which are often attributed to smoking in terms of illnesses, often the person who is that statistic is not eating right and is not exercising right as well, but it is the cigarette industry that always gets blamed for it. But let us move away from the philosophical debate, because what we are arguing here is not philosophy, what we are debating here is the Durbin amendment. And the Durbin amendment says that farmers cannot participate in the Federal crop insurance program and they cannot have communication with the extension service folks. Now, as long as tobacco is a legal crop, does it make sense to say the farmers in America cannot do what other farmers are doing who farm cotton, wheat, corn, soybeans, peanuts, sugar, and so forth; they cannot participate in a subsidized crop insurance program?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct, but I believe the ones that are subsidized are ones that have Federal Government programs, and so the ones I have named are the ones where there is a Federal Government program. My point is, as long as it is legal, is it right to tell a farmer that he cannot participate in it? I am not sure that it is right. I think it is a tad punitive, although I certainly know that the gentleman's target is not the farmer. The other thing is this communication with the extension service agents. These are the agents who tell folks how to apply pesticides and fertilizers and so forth, and often, as the gentleman knows, because he is a gentleman who likes to protect the environment, misuse of pesticides and fertilizers can lead to environmental impairment, and yet tobacco farmers would be unable to get the needed expertise from the extension service agents. There are also ramifications on the loan program and so forth. So I would say that what the Durbin amendment does is, while philosophically this is not its intent, in reality it has the effect of hurting farmers and I think is somewhat punitive. I believe that a better approach would be the general philosophical debate on tobacco at the proper time and also continuation of programs like the DARE Program, the ASSIST Program, possibly looking into the outlawing of cigarette vending machines, because they are readily available to minors, and maybe having some tricky debate about first amendment rights in terms of advertising that entices young children to get involved in cigarette smoking, and so forth. These things the gentleman and I have talked informally on. We are not really on the proper committee of authorization for it, but I think it is something this House should hold a debate on. But on the current amendment that is pending I believe the proper vote, Mr. Chairman, is ``no.''

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted with the few minutes left to talk about another serious problem that we are facing in America today, mostly with our young people, not completely, and I am talking about drugs. Now, I believe the two of you are familiar with the Clinton appointed judge Harold Baer, the Federal judge. That case, as you know, involved a woman who was in a high-crime area, pulled up to an area, I think at 4 in the morning. Four men stepped out of the shadows. She opened her trunk. They put into the back of her car in the trunk two duffle bags. The police moved in on this suspicious behavior. All five of them ran. The police apprehended all of them and found out later that the duffle bags were filled with cocaine, and this Clinton judge said that the cocaine could not be used as evidence because to run from the police was rational behavior in that neighborhood because the police were known as oppressive. That is the kind of people that we are getting to fight the war on crimes by the current administration. Now, that is in the face of the fact that the average age for marijuana usage in America right now is 13. Marijuana usage for 12- to 14-year-old kids is skyrocketing. This is a headline from the Charlotte newspaper today as I was going through the airport: Teen girls use drugs like boys. It talks about a new study showing that young American women are closing the gender gap in drug use, and today's daughters are 15 times more likely than their baby boomer mothers to have begun illegal drugs by the age of 15. Now, can you imagine, we have got these kinds of things going on in America today, and then we have judges like this appointed to the bench to defend us and keep our streets safe?

Mr. KINGSTON. That is one reason we passed the truth-in-sentencing laws, as the gentleman knows, because as of a few years ago, the average criminal was only serving 35 percent of his sentence. And we are now saying if States want new Federal money to construct jails in their State for violent criminals, then they have to serve their full sentence, which makes the streets safe. We are arresting people not for the 2d time or the 3d time, but for the 9th, 10th and 11th time. It is not safe even if you are a police officer. We only have a few minutes so why do we not have some closing comments. Mr. Hayworth.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hayworth, I agree with you completely. It has been 60 years since there has been a status quo shakeup in Washington, and we need to change this liberal command and control bureaucracy and return power back to the people, back to the local governments so that we can do a more efficient, more effective job of running this country and have a Government that works. Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time, and again I thank Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. Hayworth for joining in this special order.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to talk tonight in response to some of the things that have been going on in Washington. I have with me the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. I think our first topic that we will go ahead and talk about is this Wisconsin waiver, which basically is saying it gives the State of Wisconsin the right to make their own laws on governing and reforming welfare. President Clinton went out there 2 weeks ago and said, ``I support the waiver for you, I like what you're doing, it's great,'' and when the cameras were on, he was 100 percent for it. Then when the cameras turned off, he backed off. But the second thing that happened is the Republican Party said, ``Great, a bipartisan chance to work on welfare reform. We welcome it.'' Here is a President who said he wanted to end welfare as we know it, not extend welfare as he has been doing, so let us give him the Wisconsin waiver. It has been debated, as I understand it from the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], 18 months in the Wisconsin Legislature. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] was in the State legislature. What is your comment on this?

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to make the point that the liberal media has given President Clinton a free ride on just about any issue. What the Congress is saying, ``We're giving you a chance, Mr. President, if you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.'' You mentioned that we have passed welfare twice and it has been vetoed by this President twice. In fact, the last bill passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 87 to 12. That is a very strong bipartisan statement, particularly from the Senate which is not exactly letting a lot of legislation go.

Mr. KINGSTON. I am glad the gentleman mentioned that we do have a very difficult time here approaching issues and the resolution of those issues on a rational basis because of the rhetoric. Here on this chart is a quote by the Democrat leader, Dick Gephardt. This was on CNN September 30, 1995, last year. ``it is a big lie to say that Medicare is in trouble.'' This is not an ordinary rank-and-file Democrat here speaking. Okay, everybody may say something one time. But here again, ``Meet The Press,'' July 30, questioned by a reporter. ``Isn't it true that we cannot allow Medicare to grow at 10 percent a year?'' Congressman Gephardt says, ``Now the Republicans are saying because the report says the fund will have insolvency problems in the year 2002 there's a great urgency. This is a hoax.'' This is the health care program that my mother is on, not just my mother but all of her friends and my parents' friends who raised me and helped me in my formative years. The Democrat leader says that it is not going broke. Here is the report which came out today. Last year this yellow line says that Medicare would be going bankrupt in the year 2002. This was the report of April 3, 1995. Well, that yellow line going bankrupt in 2002, that is what Congressman Gephardt was saying, ``That's a lie.'' Well, he turned out to be right. It was wrong. It actually is going to go bankrupt, according to the new report, which just came out today, about 2 years earlier than that, and there is a steady decline in dollars already. Medicare is losing money. The very program that our mother's health care depends on and you do not want to fact up to how we are going to protect and preserve it? This is extremely important. It is a high priority for me. It is beyond partisan politics. These are the people who helped raise all of us. We owe them a debt. We have got to crack down on the fraud and the abuse and the waste. We have got to give them a choice of health care plans, a choice of physicians, the same choices that you and I have when we go out into the health care and insurance market. Let Mom and Dad have those choices.

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to make a point about this fraud and abuse. Right now Medicare does not pay people like your father with that stack of bills, if he finds out that three or four of them are erroneous, he does not get any kind of reward for that at all. In fact many times when you say don't pay a bill to Medicare, you have to really be proactive or they resist you. But here is an example. This is a kind of a dressing, and I am not sure, a salesperson gave this to me, and said that the cost, the actual manufacturing cost, is like 9 cents and it sells under Medicare for about $28. It is a total abuse of the system. And I just want to say that under our reform plan, seniors who are getting billed for this kind of thing right and left would have the opportunity to crack down on it. Let me yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. Had the gentleman from Texas yielded, what I wanted to point out is that the Republican Party, acting in a spirit of bipartisanship, is taking the President of the United States at his word on the Wisconsin waiver and we are going to have that bill on the floor of the House. I am surprised, as I listen to these Democrats, that they are against it because it was President Clinton's idea. I wanted to make sure that folks know we are doing exactly what President Clinton called for and that no Democrats have expressed any outrage until suddenly tonight. I thank the gentleman. Mr. LUCAS Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is well taken. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law 104-19 which appropriated $39 million in Community Development Block Grants [CDBG] to assist citizens of Oklahoma City with meeting the financial hardships created by the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building. This truly was the proper Federal response to a presidentially-mandated national emergency. Never before had Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation utilizing CDBG funds in this manner. An act of terror of this magnitude forces all of us to reflect on the standard operating procedures under which we, as a government, react to national emergencies. At this time, I am asking the President and the rest of the Federal Government to diligently reflect on how best we can restore Oklahoma City to where it was before 9:02 a.m. of that fateful day. Mr. Speaker, as millions of people around the Nation joined the city of Oklahoma City on April 19 to remember those killed and injured in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building, they may have noticed the number of buildings that remain as damaged today as they were immediately following this tragic event. On April 17 of this year, I sent a letter to President Clinton pointing out that there are major obstacles to fully utilizing the CDBG funds in the rebuilding effort and asking for his assistance in freeing up these funds to rebuild Oklahoma City. Specifically, I asked that he use his statutory authority to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act for these funds. It is my belief that in a unique situation such as what occurred in Oklahoma City, this authority should be used. In fact, FEMA appropriations are not subject to Davis- Bacon to ensure that relief efforts can be accomplished in an expeditious manner so that the focus can be on rebuilding the communities affected. The funds appropriated to Oklahoma City should be seen in this light, which would warrant the suspension of Davis-Bacon. To date I have received no response from the White House; by not responding to this request, President Clinton has ignored the request of Oklahoma City which has appealed to me for assistance in this matter. Last week, armed with specific case examples from Oklahoma City, I sent a second letter which again asked the President to exercise his authority to suspend this act. One example stated Davis- Bacon raised the costs of the project by 75 percent, and the city estimates that all project costs rise by an average of 25 to 40 percent. These are dollars that do not go toward disaster relief, but which are badly needed by the people of Oklahoma City. According to title 40, section 276a-5 of the U.S. Code, ``In the event of a national emergency, the President is authorized to suspend the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.'' On the day of the bombing, the President issued a release stating that the bombing was a national emergency. I agreed with him and welcomed his pronouncement. Mr. President, I ask you to take the next step and suspend the Davis- Bacon Act today. The sooner this is done, the sooner Oklahoma City will be able to fully utilize the money appropriated them last year. I understand that Davis-Bacon is a politically charged issue and that this is a campaign year, but I maintain to the President that my motive for this request is not to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, but to utilize the act to its fullest. My point is that, in disaster situations, like what happened in Oklahoma City, the primary role of the Federal Government is to ensure that the fewest number of restrictions are placed on relief workers and small businesses. Had Oklahoma City received money from FEMA instead of from HUD, as disaster relief funds normally are, Davis-Bacon requirements would not have applied. Therefore, I feel this is a reasonable and nonpartisan request. I stand here today, as a representative of the people from Oklahoma City, who simply want to use the Federal relief funds in the matter that relief funds have historically been used. Presidents Roosevelt, Nixon, and Bush, used this section of the law to suspend Davis-Bacon. Though there clearly is a precedent for suspending Davis-Bacon, there is no precedent for what occurred in Oklahoma City. My question is simple: Mr. President, what will it be, yes or no? Mr. Speaker, the letters of the President referred to earlier are included for the Record. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 17, 1996. Hon. William J. Clinton, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear President Clinton: As we approach the one year anniversary of the tragic bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I want to take the opportunity to relate to you certain problems that have slowed down the utilization of the $39 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds by businesses and individuals. A similar letter has also been sent to Secretary Reich and Secretary Cisneros. First, I want to emphasize that the people of Oklahoma, myself included, will forever be indebted for the federal response to this unprecedented act of terrorism. In fact, it is because of this rapid response that I feel that this issue must be addressed. As you know, Oklahoma City received $39 million in CDBG funds through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Secretary Cisneros worked closely with myself and others to find offsets in this section of the budget and worked very hard to assure that the City would have flexibility in its use of this money. At present, this money is subject to The Davis-Bacon Act, which requires small businesses to comply with Davis-Bacon reporting requirements and pay local prevailing wages for work associated with cleaning up and rebuilding the devastated area. The City of Oklahoma City has estimated that Davis-Bacon increases the cost of these projects by 25-40 percent and produces long delays. Even employees who want to help rebuild their workplace have to be certified under conditions of the Davis-Bacon Act and be paid as though they were general contractors. Like you, I want maximum utilization of the CDGB funds to rebuilt the City. Under these conditions, I fear that the $39 million will not be sufficient to rejuvenate Oklahoma City. In Title 40, Section 276A-5, United States Code, the President has the authority to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in times of national emergency. As you are aware, the Oklahoma City bombing was declared a national emergency on April 19, 1995. I am requesting that this authority be used. I am not advocating any statutory changes to be made to this Act, nor do I want this request to be seen as a testament to Davis- Bacon; however, in times of national emergency, appropriated funds should solely be directed for relief efforts. I'm afraid that currently that is not the case. If this action is not desirable to the administration, I would recommend substantially increasing the threshold for Davis-Bacon projects so that small contractors can bid on this work. This would also allow small businesses to use their own employees to clean up and rebuild their stores. Again, this would only apply to the CDBG funds in Oklahoma City. If this is done, I believe we owe it to the businesses and the community to set up an on-site verification process to immediately certify workers so that these relief projects can be expedited. This would not address the higher costs for these projects, but would allow them to commence work. I believe that a solution to this problem can be achieved. The aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing is a tremendous illustration of how federal, state, and local officials can work together and work with the community to address a disaster. I hope that this cooperation continues, and I thank you for your consideration of my requests. Sincerely, Frank D. Lucas, Member of Congress.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I will be happy to yield back to the gentleman.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues about Sue and Sally Jones; real people, fake names, Sue is 18 years old. She has a baby. Her sister, Sally, is 15 years old. She does not have any children. She is in the 8th grade; should be in the 10th grade. Sue is a 10th grader who should be a senior. Mr. Speaker, they do not live with their biological dad, because he was killed when they were toddlers. They live their biological mother's common-law husband, but the biological mother does not live at home anymore because she is a crack addict. One day she threw ash in her live-in husband's eyes, and he is disabled and cannot work. They have a brother but not by the same biological father. He is in jail. This is a real family, but the caseworker in Savannah tells me that he thinks he can get both of these ladies off of the Government's welfare system and into the socioeconomic mainstream; but he needs flexibility. Mr. Speaker, right now in our rigid, Washington-dictated welfare system one person has to work on their child care needs, one on the food needs, and one on the health care needs. Somebody else has to work on transportation, someone else on education. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, these girls cannot get out of the poverty trap with a system like this. They need flexibility. The caseworker needs flexibility, and that is why we need to support Medicaid and welfare State grants.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming the time, I appreciate that point. Our budget increases Medicare from $5,000 to $7,000 per person in anticipation of new enrollees, so that includes new enrollees. Again, I will be happy to send that information to your constituents and work with you on a bipartisan basis. Let me also, though, address the good old days of Democrat leadership because that is one of the things I really wanted to talk about since the theme on the Democrat side seems to be let us go back to Democrat leadership. What happened when President Clinton, the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House and the White House? The highest tax increase in the history of America, $265 billion. Highest spending, $300 billion increase in spending. A $16 billion stimulus package that President Clinton and the Democrats in the Senate and the Democrats in the House passed, which included, among other important things, is cataloguing fish. They did not propose a balanced budget when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. The Republicans on the other hand, have passed a balanced budget out of this House for the first time in 26 years. The balanced budget amendment did not get out of the House under Democrat leadership; did pass under Republican leadership. On welfare reform, the President of the United States in 1992 promised to end welfare reform as we know it, had a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, and did not introduce a welfare bill. We have passed two out of this body and in the Senate, one passing on a bipartisan vote of 87-12. It was vetoed not once but twice by the President. On health care, the President of the United States, when he had the two Chambers, tried to pass a nationalized health care plan and increased the bureaucracy by 59 different agencies. It did not move under the Republican House and the Republican Senate. We have health care reform that is making health care more affordable and more accessible. It is now in conference. It looks good. New bureaucracy, endless growth of the Government under President Clinton , including AmeriCorps, which is a volunteer program that pays volunteers $26,000 per volunteer. Let me repeat that: $26,000 per volunteer. We are trying to downsize the bureaucracy. Student loans, very little happened under student loans under President Clinton. A lot of defaults, of course, but implemented the first stage of government takeover of the student loan program. We, on the other hand, have a budget that has increased student loans from $24 billion to $36 billion. Be happy to share that with any Democrat who does not have that information. When the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House and the White House, there were no major reforms of Congress. Under the Republican Congress, we passed Congressional Accountability Act, a gift ban. We have cut the staff by one-third. We have required a two-thirds vote for an increase in taxes. We are considering campaign reform as we speak. For the senior citizens that the Democrats used to love to say that they are great champions of, under President Clinton and the Democrat House and the Democrat Senate, there was an increase on Social Security taxes, taxes were increased on Social Security. Under the Republican House, we have decreased those taxes. Now, that of course was vetoed by the President. We have also passed an earnings limitation so that seniors who want to can stay in the workplace longer. Even little things, I am not going to say this is little at all, but I mean, things that are less visible, we have done many, many changes on. I will be happy to share that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send them the information since they are not getting it from that side of the aisle. I will be happy to. Let me yield to the gentlewoman for 20 seconds. But let the Record show Democrats earlier would not yield to me for even 10 seconds. But I got some other stuff I want to talk about.