Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted my mama to get all the advantage of the 1990's and the technology that is out there in medicine, transportation, and safety. And this Medisave account, they actually have one like this in Singapore. It has led to lowering the cost of health care yet at the same time increasing the quality and keeps choice of physicians.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think the point of the gentleman is that this is but an option. It is an option that is good. It is not an option to be scared of. But if you do not want it, you can have traditional Medicare. If you do not want it, you can have a Medicare account. If you do not want it, you can have traditional insurance. Medicare has been described as a 1964 Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan. Do you want your mama driving a 1964 Chevrolet Biscayne? We had one when I was a kid. [[Page H 9871]]

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, on the description and the adjectives, I have here a September 15 editorial from the Washington Post which, if anything, is not exactly a fan of the Republican Party and the leadership. Yet they are saying in here that Republicans have a plan. It is credible. It is inventive. It addresses a genuine problem that is going to get worse. And this is a pretty good editorial, particularly coming from a group that is traditionally very critical of anything that the majority party has done. Again, getting back to what you are saying, your freshman class has led the way, clear thinking, responsibility, making things accountable, cracking down on fraud, maintaining choice of position, simplified language. That is why groups like the Washington Post, who even if it was begrudgingly, will say, Republicans have a credible plan and they are addressing a genuine problem.

Mr. KINGSTON. As the gentlewoman from California knows, as a distinguished and a very good member of the Committee on Appropriations knows, so often as members of that committee we get lobbied by people who have, in fact, come to Washington for the purpose of lobbying for more money and, quite often, on taxpayer dollars in the name of a conference. So I would say that there is plenty of murky water in there as we try to verify this. Perhaps some of the wording in the Istook amendment is not perfect. However, certainly what the Istook amendment is trying to accomplish is something that we all need to deal with as we get lobbied, particularly members of the Committee on Appropriations, by governmental and quasi-governmental groups. I also wanted to point out to the gentlewoman, I have offered an amendment that exempts what I hope would be small-fry groups; for example, historical associations, small art museums, symphony groups and theater groups, who spend actually less than $25,000 a year on government-related lobbying or information campaigns, as the case may be, however you want to call it, because I need the input from my homeless shelter and I need the input from my historical association, and so forth. But I know that their members do not want to think of them spending over $25,000 a year on Washington quasi-lobbying conferences and that sort of thing. I believe the amendment that I have offered in the Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal conference committee is a step to help strengthen that, and I hope because of that we can get some bipartisan support.

Mr. KINGSTON. Ninety-seven percent of their budget comes from the taxpayer, and they turned around and spent $405,000 on PAC contributions to political candidates. So I would say that if it was the case that not just the letter but the spirit of the law of not using tax dollars for political purposes, if that law was being followed, then we would not have that problem. What I would also wonder is that since it is already illegal for groups to use tax dollars for political purposes, I am confused why we do not have bipartisan support for the Istook amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Ninety-seven percent.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there is one group that received 97 percent of its budget from Federal taxpayers and spent $405,000 financing candidates for Congress.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I believe the gentlewoman knows the situation of one group.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield, one of the things that the Medicare reform plan does do is crack down on fraud and abuse, seriously attacking it, even to the extent that would allow seniors to have a financial incentive for reporting fraud and abuse. What I hear at my town meetings, and I am sure others have as well, is that people are going to the hospital for one thing and then getting bills for services that they never even came close to receiving. Frequently it is picked up by an auditor, but often people say, ``Don't worry about it. Medicare is paying for it.'' Yet that is right out of your pocket. The gentlewoman had mentioned some of these taxpayer-funded groups fighting Medicare reform, fighting for the status quo, fighting for a program that will go bankrupt in 7 years. I believe that is an example of the waste and abuse of our system. If they are going to use their money, their Federal grant money for political purposes, and, as you know, there are 40,000 organizations that receive over $39 billion a year in grants and funding from the Federal Government without even opening their books, if they are going to do that, then they should, I think, certainly participate in it by opening up their books for public inspection, because they are wasting it.

Mr. KINGSTON. I would love to. I think that I am touching bases on what the gentleman is saying. When we are increasing the spending per recipient from $4,800 to $6,700, we are clearly not cutting. But what we are doing is ending ``politics as usual.'' I am honored to be on the floor with the two freshmen Members, who have so much energy and vibrance and have brought so much reform to this body. But the one message of the freshman class has been this is not politics as usual. They are going to be realistic and they will address the trustees' report by the Clinton administration that says Medicare is going to be bankrupt in seven years. In doing this, the freshman class, along with the leadership, has worked for a long-term practical solution, a solution that offers choice of physicians, that offers simplified language. I heard you speaking earlier about grandma and so forth. I used to sell commercial insurance. I can say that one of the biggest problems people have with insurance, Medicare and so forth, is they cannot understand that stuff. To move towards simplified language and a clear choice of doctors, to move towards the clear choice of the different plans, if we want to get into a health maintenance organization, if we want to keep traditional Medicare, if we want to keep an insured private sector type plan, to have those options, I believe, is what our seniors want. But the long-term solution, to put Medicare on a solid basis once again, is the key to guaranteeing that it will survive.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, one thing maybe we can agree on, on a bipartisan basis, is the sugar program. In a Congress where we are revising and cutting and reducing welfare, education, farm programs right and left. We are restructuring Medicare and the School Lunch Program. We are going after all commodities: Peanuts, cotton, wheat, the Market Promotion Program. The list is endless. But, Madam Speaker, what stands alone as the sweetest deal of all? Sugar. And the result: The world price of sugar is 11 cents per ton; the domestic price is 24 cents a ton. But does it really cost the taxpayers? Not directly, because they have got the USDA in on the thing. Who pays the difference though? Shoppers at the grocery stores, and it costs American consumers $1.4 billion. Who is getting rich on it? Plenty of sugar farmers out there. There are 33 farmers involved in the sugar program in Florida alone that receive over a billion dollars in payments. One gets about $65 million a year. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] have a bill to eliminate the sugar program, and I believe, Madam Speaker, we should bring this debate to the floor of the House for a yes-or-no vote.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, now let me ask the gentleman about this freedom to farm bill because as I understand from a previous speaker tonight, that did not pass committee. Is it dead? Are you going to try to move it out of the Committee on Agriculture a second time? What is the status of that?

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I could not sit back and listen to the previous speaker without responding to the American taxpayers. There are 40,000 organizations that receive over $39 billion in taxpayer funded grants and so forth, and they are not subject to public disclosure or records of where the money went. One group received 97 percent of its budget from the Federal Government and turned around and gave $405,000 to congressional candidates through their PAC. I do not think that is what the taxpayers want. There are plenty of good organizations who will continue to get funding and will continue to have political input. What we want to do is stop the abuse of taxpayer moneys for political purposes. I have cosponsored an amendment to this bill that says that if you spend less than $25,000 a year on political activities, you are exempt from it. There is also a provision in the bill that exempts you if 5 percent or less of your money is spent on it. This is not going after the small groups. This is going after the big political business groups. I urge my colleagues to support the Istook- McIntosh amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, in Georgia it appears the people are saying we need to be convinced here that you are serious. We want programs that eliminate, and consolidate, and end the duplication and inefficiency. We do want things back at local and State levels as much as possible. We have with us the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], who played college football for the Wolfpack in North Carolina, then tried to go on to the pros, and those coaches recognized what the college level should have recognized, is that he could not play football after all, and so now he----

Mr. KINGSTON. I will not let you guys get away with that.

Mr. KINGSTON. One second. Were those Republican trustees?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, tonight we wanted to talk about a number of issues that stand between this Congress, the American taxpayers, and a balanced budget. There is a smorgasbord of issues, of course, that fall in that category. We are going to be touching base on the Davis- Bacon Act and some of the student loan programs, this so-called Istook amendment, and Medicare reform. I have with me, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. and always on special orders sharing his wisdom with us, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], who has just given us a description of where we are in the ag program. Let me ask you gentlemen, and I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] I am going to start with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] because he and I were freshmen together. We came here in 1992, along with a new President of the United States, trying to balance the budget and do everything we can. We did not, in the 103d Congress, get very far in that effort. How do you think we have done so far? Do not pat yourself on the back. People are tired of that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Are you through with the introduction, or are you going to tell us----

Mr. KINGSTON. J.D., even if you were sitting here when we said it, you would repeat it if you wanted to. We will not try to stop you.

Mr. KINGSTON. When the April 3, 1995, trustees' report came out saying that Medicare was going to go bankrupt, it did not say, ``It is going to go bankrupt in 6 years if you pass a tax cut.'' They just said, ``It is going to go bankrupt.'' They are two independent things. As the gentleman earlier pointed out, the gentleman from Michigan, the average American right now is paying 40.5 percent in taxes. These are middle-class people. Each family has two incomes, you never get to see your spouse any more, your children are all running around going crazy. It is their dollars. We are not giving them back something, we are just not going to confiscate it in the first place.

Mr. KINGSTON. What the Istook amendment is, there are 40,000 different organizations that receive taxpayer funding in the form of grants or direct loans or straight funding. Many of these organizations, and by the way this is to the tune of $39 billion, many of these organizations, most of them, are not even open to public disclosure of their records, saying where the money is going, who is spending it, what kind of salaries the directors are making, and so forth. What the Istook-McIntosh amendment says is that if you receive Federal money, what you have to have is that kind of disclosure. Also, you cannot use the money for political lobbying. There was one example of an outfit that got 97 percent of its money from the Federal Government, and spent $405,000 in PAC contributions to congressional candidates; absolutely nothing but funding politics with taxpayer moneys. It is totally wrong. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is one of the things we are doing that will help move us toward a balanced budget and put some common sense in this crazy government system.

Mr. KINGSTON. I have never seen the gentleman speechless.

Mr. KINGSTON. I served in the State legislature before I was elected to Congress and served here one term, and then got put on the Committee on Appropriations this year. I cannot tell you how many tax-funded lobbyist schemes come across our desks in our office every day. You know doggone good and well people are there at taxpayer expense. They are printing the forms and so forth. Billy Joel wrote a song: ``You Can Speak Your Mind, But Not on My Time.'' This reminds me of what the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is saying: ``You can speak your mind, but not on my dime.'' We need to move on because I want to talk about this train wreck, but I do want to say one thing. I have offered an amendment to the Istook- McIntosh legislation. What it says is that if your organization spends less than $25,000 on political activity, then you can continue doing that. This way your local art museum, your local history museum, historic society, symphony, and so forth, they will not have any problem still calling you up, asking questions, and giving their valuable inputs and so forth. I think it is important for us to say we do not want to pick on the hometown folks because we need their input. But some of this Washington-based lobbying on taxpayer funds needs to stop. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] on this continuing resolution and the train wreck. Tell us, in non- Washington terms, what all that means.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to explain to folks what the debt ceiling is, because I do not think the American households and businesses have debt ceilings. I am not sure they do. Tell us what that means.