Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. KINGSTON. You don't have anything else on this section of the bill?

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a great member of the committee.

Mr. KINGSTON. And I wanted to say food safety is something that we all place a very high priority on and we're very concerned about, and we have been watching this situation in Europe daily as we're all concerned, and our prayers are with the people who have suffered and those who have died. I do want to read a quote that Secretary of USDA Mr. Vilsack said yesterday, and I will just quote: Secretary John Vilsack said he is ``reasonably confident'' that U.S. consumers won't face the same sort of E. coli outbreak now plaguing Germany. And we're doing a lot and have done a lot in the last 15 years to make sure that we address potential E. coli infection. For example, the type of ground beef that has had a repeated problem with it has actually been cut in half. Also, I want to say I do have concerns about the FDA implementation of food safety. We hear quite often that 48 million people have suffered from food-borne illnesses--a very high number, a number that we're all very concerned about--but only 20 percent of these are from known pathogens. If you look at it even further, 60 percent of the illnesses from known pathogens come from norovirus. And how do we address this? Well, CDC said on March 4, to update the norovirus, that appropriate hand hygiene is the likely most single important method to prevent norovirus infection and control transmission. Reducing any norovirus present on hands is accomplished by thorough hand washing with running water and plain antiseptic soap. Now, in the FDA 630-page budget request, there was not one single mention of norovirus. I would ask anybody, isn't that odd to you? That's something we need to be concerned about. Why would they not mention that, if nearly 60 percent of the illnesses are from norovirus? Second highest cause of illness is from salmonella. And under the authority that FDA had before the Food Safety Modernization Act and the authority that the FDA has right now, they finalized the salmonella egg rule in July of last year, almost a year ago. According to the FDA's own press release, FDA said that as many as 79,000 illnesses and 30 deaths due to consumption of eggs contaminated with salmonella may be avoided each year with new food safety requirements. They have that authority right now, and that was last year's budget. They can still do it this year with this budget. The third highest cause of food-borne illness comes from crossbreeding, and crossbreeding is mentioned one time in FDA's 2012 budget request as it was related to food defense. And the reason why this is important is because the FDA always seems to be ready to take on new initiatives, and yet it doesn't seem to be tackling the food safety challenges that we have right now in an orderly fashion under its current budget. Now, the CDC statistics, which we got through hearings, go back to that 48 million food-borne illnesses a year, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths, very high numbers, numbers that we are all concerned about. But if you look at 311 million Americans eating three meals a day, that would be 933 million meals eaten daily or 340 billion eaten each year. If you do the math on this, the food safety rate is 99.9 percent safe. Why is that relevant? Because something's working without the FDA and without the USDA and without the nanny state saying we're in charge of everything. And that's how the private sector--the private sector is a dirty word for many people in Washington, D.C. But food processing companies are very concerned about food safety and their customers' safety, because the way you keep your customers coming back to buy more is to keep them happy, and that means to keep them safe. And it would be hard for me to believe that some of the leading companies in America, such as McDonald's or Burger King or Coca-Cola, have anything on their minds except for food safety. So I appreciate the gentlewoman offering this amendment, but it's only $1 million. And if it were a serious amendment, certainly it would be more than that. But based on what we've seen so far, I don't think this amendment is going to do anything. [From USA TODAY] Vilsack: U.S. Largely Safe From European E. coli Outbreak (By Dan Vergano) Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is ``reasonably confident'' that U.S. consumers won't face the same sort of E. coli outbreak now plaguing Germany. But the European episode ``reinforces that we need to remain vigilant here about food safety,'' Vilsack said Monday, speaking with the USA TODAY editorial board. Public health experts, however, warned that another serious outbreak in the U.S. is just a matter of time and luck. ``Could it happen here? It already has,'' says infectious- disease expert Larry Lutwick of SUNY-Downstate College of Medicine in Brooklyn, citing past U.S. outbreaks that involved strains of E. coli other than the one that has struck Germany. He points to last year's romaine lettuce-related outbreak of an E. coli strain that sickened 26 people, and the 2006 fresh spinach-related episode that hospitalized 199 people in 26 states. In Germany, officials backtracked Monday for the second time in a week and said testing ruled out bean sprouts from an organic farm as the possible source for the outbreak that has killed 22 people and sickened more than 2,330 people across Europe. Testing earlier ruled out cucumbers from Spain as the culprit. ``This investigation has been a disaster,'' Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, tells the Associated Press. ``This kind of wishy-washy response is incompetent,'' he says, accusing German authorities of casting suspicion on cucumbers and sprouts without firm data. Some U.S. health experts say government assurances face constant trials. ``Food isn't just grown locally, it comes from all over the world, which poses a lot of challenges'' for food safety, says epidemiologist Elaine Scallan of the University of Colorado-Denver. She notes the current system heavily relies on rapid responses to outbreaks but is not as well positioned to prevent them. ``We are relying on state and local health departments to pick up these outbreaks, just like their equivalents in Europe,'' she said. In January, President Obama signed a food safety act ramping up Food and Drug Administration authority to police food imports. But Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest warns those inspections may be cut in the ongoing congressional budget battle.

Mr. KINGSTON. I reluctantly have to insist on the point of order. It's actually scored by CBO at $5 million, and that is beyond my authority to waive anything. And it's not a numerical thing. It's just a rule.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to comment on that. But that's exactly what we're doing.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to remind you SNAP actually goes up $5.6 billion on this, and you're not talking about it, but school lunch also goes up $1\1/2\ million. So I did want to say that the SNAP portion of this bill does go up $5.6 billion. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. KINGSTON. I have no further requests for time, I move passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will my friend yield a minute?

Mr. KINGSTON. We don't know the percentage food prices are rising, but we do know that this budget would allow with contingencies 9 million to participate, which is above the current level. Now, I'm hoping that the economy does turn around, but I think it's very important, though, for us to be talking about some of these things that are in the mix like solid numbers, coordination of benefits, and also sources that people can go to, because the gentleman said, Folks don't know about this program, and we want to help them out.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. KINGSTON. With that, I withdraw my objection, and we accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, we were talking earlier about some of the overlaps in these Federal food assistance programs. To me, this is a case where this is a program where there is a lot of overlap with food stamps, and we should look at that, realizing that that is the authorizing committee's jurisdiction. There is not much more that I can do than comment on it. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I want to make a couple of points. Number one, this bill increases food stamps by $5.6 billion. Now, somebody has said, But that's not as much as the President requested. Well, it is an increase of $5.6 billion. And I'm sorry, the President's crystal ball isn't always the best one. I don't need to remind you about last summer's celebration of recovery or whatever it was called. School nutrition goes up $1.5 billion under this bill. We did what has been done in the past with WIC. We fund the participation level that is anticipated. Last year, the Democrats voted to cut WIC funding by $562 million. I have got the votes right here for any Democrat who is not sure how he or she voted. I want to give you the vote. I will put it in the Record so everybody can have a chance to look at it because after a while, I have to wonder. I also have the vote record for extending the Bush tax cuts, which was signed by President Obama. I have the vote record for that. I want to say to some of my friends over there, I voted ``no'' on that. Very important. This bill funds WIC at 8.3 million participants. Now, if it goes up to over 9 million, the contingency fund is there to cover that. The contingency fund for WIC alone is $350 million. It would have been higher, Mr. Chairman, but the Democrats voted to cut it $562 million last year for an unrelated account. Now, to quote one of the well-known Democrats, That's an inconvenient truth to some of the speakers here tonight. But it is very important. It is not the intention of this bill to let anybody go hungry. And any time the Bible is quoted on the floor of the House, I think it's a good thing. But I think there are some lessons in there that if there is a target on children's backs, perhaps it's the fact that our Nation is over $14 trillion in debt; and for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, much of that from China. And who do you think is going to pay that back? It's not going to be the generations who are making the decisions. It's going to be the children. So what our challenge is, Mr. Chairman, is to balance the fiscal need with the heart, and I believe that this budget very carefully does that. It increases food stamps $5.6 billion. It increases school lunches $1.5 billion. It funds WIC at a level of 8.3 million and has a contingency that will cover over 9 million participants. So for all the drama that we're hearing--and it is some very good rhetoric and some very good drama, but it's not accurate. Now we could be talking about the WIC overhead, the WIC administrative costs. We could be talking about the fraud in WIC. We could be talking about the coordination of feeding benefits. If a child is 3 years old in America, he or she is eligible for 12 different programs. At 10 years old, they're eligible for nine programs. At 65, they're eligible for five different feeding programs. Those are Federal programs. It does not mention any of the State or the local participation in programs that are out there. It doesn't mention any of the charitable organizations that are out there. So, again, we're hearing lots of great rhetoric, lots of drama; but it's not accurate. These numbers are important for reasonable debate for people who are trying to balance the runaway spending in this country--a 56 percent increase in the national debt under President Obama--and the need to take care of the poor. I want to say to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), because I know he has been very consistent--and I do certainly agree that everybody here has passion and conviction and idealism, which I think we all need more of--I voted with you, Mr. Kucinich, last week. I think we are spending a lot of money in Libya. And those are things that are very important for us to be debating on the floor of the House before the President of the United States--of either party--goes and obligates billions of dollars in a new overseas contingency operation. We need to be discussing that. So I would say, put that on the table.

Mr. KINGSTON. I will accept the amendment. I want to say to my friend from Florida, we're going to be looking at all this as the process goes on, and we'll certainly work with you. We, Mr. Farr and I and the committee, do appreciate all the research that the ARS does and all of the good things. And I am glad to know that you are following them because I do think it's a significant agency within the USDA.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say my friend from Connecticut will agree, though, that if you, on your side, had not cut WIC $562 million, that money would still be there right now.

Mr. KINGSTON. The reason is that the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of funding and outlays in the bill. And under the House rule, the amendment has to be budget neutral with budget authority and with outlays. This only does one of those. I know the gentlewoman has worked very hard on this, and that was the intent. But because the budget authority and outlay both have to be considered, that is what the problem is under rule XXI. I know the gentlewoman is an expert in this, has put a lot of time and a lot of compassion in it, and it is something that the committee is not turning our backs on at all. But that's why we're objecting to it. And I know that my friend from Houston is very passionate on this and will be back again doing other things to try to make sure that we address food deserts and so forth. I appreciate her conviction on that, and I wanted to explain that.

Mr. KINGSTON. I just wanted to say that we actually have had one more speaker show up. It sounds like you are closing. You might want to reserve some time.

Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word and oppose the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I want to say to my friends from Texas and Connecticut that, number one, the DeLauro amendment which you alluded to that increases WIC $147 million is intact, and that increase has gone on. We do have to offset it from another portion of the bill, and the reason is because that Brazilian cotton agreement was a WTO agreement that President Obama agreed to. The money is restored. So if that helps clarify things, and if not, let me know. I want to just remind everyone, if you want to help hungry people you've got to have the money to do it. Now, both parties have overspent. For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Both parties. Under President Bush, in an 8-year period of time, the debt went up $3.5 trillion. Now, under President Obama, in a 3-year period of time it's gone up $5 trillion, a 56 percent increase. And President Obama now owns the wars in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan in terms of this is his watch. He has had opportunity to change the direction. He has not done so. So let's quit hiding behind, We're at war, and therefore, it's the Republicans' fault. I also want to remind my friends that the only budget that has passed either House is the Ryan budget, which is what we're operating under. The President of the United States' budget failed on the Senate floor 97-0. He did not even get Harry Reid's vote. So we're operating under the budget constraints that we have. Let me say this--very important about the WIC program. From February 2010 to February 2011, the number of participants has dropped 300,000. The level now is 8.7 million. We will make sure no one falls through the cracks. There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens. And I want to point out for all the screaming and hollering and the self-righteousness, last year the Democrats cut WIC by $562 million and put the money into an unrelated account that had nothing to do with hunger. It was a political settlement. Where was the screaming and hollering then? And I want to say this in terms of the World Food Program, if we want to help these countries--and I am committed to it--we have to have our own financial house in order. Otherwise, all we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is borrowing from our children to feed children overseas. That does not make sense. I appreciate it, and I urge everyone to support the rule.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit an article which explains some of the problems and unintended consequences of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203). [From Forbes Magazine, by Mallory Factor] The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act is supposed to shield consumers from problems in the financial services sector that many believe led to the financial meltdown. But Section 342 of the act introduces a brash example of social engineering that masquerades as consumer protection and financial reform. This section imposes gender and racial employment quotas on the financial services industry, which accounts for one-tenth of our economy. The quota provisions will affect over 50,000 financial services firms and other businesses, and the consequences will be enormous. Dodd-Frank requires at least 29 federal bureaus to open Offices of Minority & Women Inclusion, involving ten branches of the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and its 12 regional banks, the Securities & Exchange Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The new diversity offices will implement rules to ensure ``the fair inclusion and utilization'' of minorities and women in all firms doing business with each agency. The offices will terminate contracts with any service provider that fails to meet these as yet undetermined standards. Just running these offices is estimated to cost over $58 million annually, says David Patten in a recent story on Newsmax.com. These new offices will also assess the ``diversity policies and practices'' at all entities that fall under their regulatory eye, including banks, broker-dealers, registered investment advisors and now hedge funds. Along with more than 40,000 financial services firms, another 10,000-plus businesses, including accounting and law firms that do business with these government offices, will be subject to this new diversity oversight of their hiring. What does this mean for the financial services sector? Assuming each firm hires at least one new worker to satisfy the new law, this provision could raise costs $4 billion or more annually, depending how far forthcoming regulations will extend. Firms doing business with the government will face additional expenses because they will now have to monitor the hiring practices of their subcontractors as well. In addition to these reporting burdens, firms must prove to their regulators and to government offices with which they do business that they are meeting or working toward racial and gender hiring guidelines. In many cases this will require additional hiring beyond the needs of the business. Forcing America's private firms to hire on the basis of racial and gender ``guidelines,'' rather than solely on need and qualifications, is inefficient and makes our businesses less competitive than their global counterparts. Moreover, four out of the eight members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote a letter to Congress stating that this section of the act would likely ``promote discrimination,'' and urged its removal from the bill. There is a better, more cost-efficient solution: Let private companies come up with their own approaches. Deloitte's 19-year-old Women's Initiative, for example, has boosted the percentage of female partners, principals and directors from 7% in 1994 to 23% in 2010. And minorities and females currently make up 60% of kpmg's workforce. While the idea of encouraging greater participation of minorities and women in the financial services sector is admirable, the government is overreaching when it mandates gender and racial quotas for private businesses. An affirmative action provision has no place in a financial services reform bill and puts additional government burdens and costs on an already struggling sector of our economy, putting our recovery at risk. The megabills that fly through Congress provide legislators the opportunity to insert politically motivated provisions-- under the radar. As Rahm Emanuel famously said after President Obama had been elected, ``Never allow a crisis to go to waste.'' The financial crisis has given the President and Congress cover to impose their political agenda on private business activity. Watch out: Your industry could be next.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2011; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 9, 2011; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, June 13, 2011.