Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to control the time; and I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I want to make the point, this is not an arbitrary move by the Committee on Appropriations. There were budget hearings on this, oversight hearings and annual appropriations committees. All we are trying to do, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has said, is just start with some certainty from 1985, from here on, that point on, we are going to clean it up. And that cost is going to be about $900 million. If we do not have that 1985 bracketed, we are looking at two things: A cost of about 2.4 billion according to the Department of Interior's Office of Historical Trust Accounting. And what is worse than that, we will not be able to resolve it.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield for one minute, this is something unrelated that I think the gentleman will support dispensing with.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to do is kind of go through some of the questions that have been brought up here. One of the questions was, Does the administration know about this? Does the administration support it? The administration does know about this language and the administration does support this bill. Certainly, the Department of the Interior has fly-specked it as carefully as they can. As we all know, Democrats and Republicans and the administration are quick to point out what they like or dislike on anything we are doing here on the Hill. The second issue I wanted to touch base on was one that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) raised about precluding any dispute prior to 1985. It is the intention of this committee to not permanently preclude any accounting for other accounts for other periods. Why is the 1985 date the one we are starting with? We are starting with that because that was the beginning of the electronic era, when it became a little easier to track this. Why are we in this situation to begin with? We go back, and this actually does span hundreds of years, the dates might not be exactly accurate, but say 1820-ish. At that time, there were Indian reservations. In 1833, there was an act of Congress that busted them up, and it was called the Land Allotment Act, 1833 and 1834. And at that time much of this previous reservation land was returned into the hands of Native Americans. And then through a number of unscrupulous moves they lost a lot of this land. The Federal Government came back and said this is not fair. We have got to get the land back to the people who own it, and so they started a system of leasing land. Now, let us say you were a Native American in 1840 and you owned 240 acres of land, easy, clear to understand. But fast forward down the road 100 years, and you have got a thousand people, a thousand heirs who are claiming that 240 acres, and in many cases smaller tracts of lands and more heirs are claiming it. So it is very difficult to administer this thing. To give you an idea what we are talking about, some of these leaseholders are getting paid 3 and 4 cents, Mr. Chairman, and it costs $30 or $40 a lease to administer the payment to them. So what the committee is trying to do in this confusion is bracket the problem off and say, tell you what, the year is 2002, let us go back to 1985 where we had hard core electronic records of the land. Let us start with that. Let us try to figure this out in this bracket. Now we are not saying we will not go back, but we are saying from this point on let us clean up the mess that we have because this portion is more manageable. It is not, again, the intent of the committee to preclude any accounting problems prior to 1985. But one thing I want to say, if we do not put a bracket on it, we are looking at $2.4 billion in accounting. And a lot of money, this money, as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has pointed out, is going to wind up in the hands of lawyers, not in the hands of the Native American landowners. So the committee is trying to find some reasonable balance and it is bipartisan.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to make a few closing points that I think are very important. Number one, on the question of 1985, it has been called an arbitrary date. It is not an arbitrary date. That is the date of the electronic records. If my colleagues do not like the 1985 date, what date do they want? 1980, 1975, 1979? And then with that gap, what records will you have? If you have the records for the period prior to 1985 to any other date certain, please come up with it. Number two, this does not preclude claims that happened before 1985. It simply gets us started. Number three, we are looking at now making real progress, getting the job done, or at least taking the first very significant step at a cost of about $900 million versus a cost of $2.4 billion. Earlier, on this bill, last night, we had lots of debate and heartaches about the money this bill was spending. It seems odd to me that now people would say, well, let us just spend $1.5 billion. And that money, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has pointed out, may never get to the people who we all want to get the money to eventually. It has been said that the lawyers are not making money. Well, lawyers do tend to do things for a profit. The court monitors in 2001, for example, were paid about $342,000. The court monitor was paid $342,000 and the special master was paid $354,000. That is compensation well over $400,000 a year. So I think what was asserted earlier, that the lawyers are making money on this thing, I think is important to say. This committee has long stood up for Native Americans. This is the committee that funds the Native American programs. This is the committee that advocates for Native Americans, and it is in that regard that we are saying let us get this job started with the 1985 date, do a good job on those that we know are certain, and then go back. I want to point out that this bill has $2.9 billion for Indian health services, new hospitals, critical health care services, research on diabetes and treatment. It has $1.8 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' operation of Indian programs. That, Mr. Chairman, means education programs, money for new computers, money for new teachers, money for new transportation so school kids can get to schools. And, also, this bill, at the advocacy of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and many, many others, puts $22 million in Indian program increases, which will help build six new schools and continues critical hospital and clinic construction. This bill does a lot of things because this committee, on a bipartisan basis, does everything it can for our Native Americans.

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

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

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly why I bring it up, is to acknowledge the changes that have been made. And the gentleman and I have both sat through hearings, through Democrat and Republican administrators over there, and I think they have cleaned it up, and I am glad. Some of it has been with a hammer, some of it has been more willing, but a lot has gone on. I would also like them to continue to decentralize the NEA. I do think, and if I were the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) I would be pushing it hard, because so much of the money is concentrated in New England, but there is a lot of art outside of New York City. When these theater groups come down and they do a little ballet for the rural folks down home, and they say, well, we kept the hicks from the sticks happy, now we can go home, I do not think it is anything that great and wonderful. I would love to see the NEA have a distribution formula where they say we have to push that stuff out and distribute it more in Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, my point is NEA, I think, has moved forward in a good direction. Unlike years past when I have voted to cut the NEA, I will vote to support the NEA. But I know as the vice chairman of this committee, to put more money in it means that we are going to lose votes, so I must oppose this amendment. On the NEH, I am a big NEH supporter. I would support the NEH increase, but I cannot do it on the floor of the House because that is going to run off votes. I think there are some things to talk about in the process which I look forward to engaging in as the months go by. Right now, all of the issues that we have gotten together with the Westerners and the Easterners and the folks on Native American issues, we need to keep the precarious balance of this bill where it is because it is a Push Me-Pull You.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I first want to join all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in saying what a great chairman and a great Representative Joe Skeen has been. I have enjoyed working with him and serving on his Subcommittee on the Interior, as well as the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. I do not think a finer gentleman has ever been in the United States Congress. I was very glad that this committee, on a bipartisan basis, joined together to honor him with an appropriate tribute to him in the form of a visitor's center. I want to say also, Mr. Chairman, that this bill can be a very difficult bill because we are 435 independent type-A personalities in this body, with geographical differences, philosophical differences and, then provincial differences which can sometimes split us up. But this bill, in a final product, is cobbled together and is a kaleidoscope of philosophies and attempts to do a lot of difficult things with about a $19 billion budget, a budget which I will say, although is slightly higher, is only about 2 percent higher than the funding for last year. I wish we could hold the line on all Federal funding to that modest 2 percent increase. But we have Members on both sides of the aisle who have demanded more studies, more land acquisition, and more increases; and so that is one of the reasons why the bill is higher than last year. But this bill has good stuff for the National Park Service, catching us up on maintenance. It has money for firefighting, both for clearing out forests and putting more money in for emergency firefighting. There is money for energy research. At a time when we have a stalled bill in the other body that we cannot move forward, here is an opportunity to put a lot of the great research forward that we need in terms of our national energy policy. There is money for the first Americans, Native Americans, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have a lot more money for tribal health services and a lot of needed issues that they have. There is money for the PILT grants, payment in lieu of taxes, and something for our local governments. This bill has a lot of great stuff for our national environmental policy, and so I strongly support it and join my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to move it forward today.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say that I support the efforts of my colleagues from Georgia and know of their efforts to try to get this corrected. I have been disappointed that we as a committee have not been able to come up with a satisfactory solution, but I know the gentlemen from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and (Mr. Norwood) have a serious local problem here that we have got to address on a national basis, because I think there are some issues that have been inherited from past administrations that we are now suffering from. So I wanted to say to my colleagues from Georgia that I stand in support of what they are trying to do; and I want to say in terms of the conference, I want to do everything I can, Mr. Chairman, to try to get this thing corrected.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I certainly believe that the intent of the amendment is a good one, and I certainly appreciate the debate and the opportunity to debate what funding levels are appropriate and what funding levels are not appropriate. The Bureau of Land Management account, however, is 1.5 percent above last year's limit. I would love to serve in the House of Representatives and look at each and every government agency and say that the level of funding is only 1.5 percent higher than it was last year. Frankly, I would like to see a lot of these agencies a lot less than that, and not just a reduction in the increase, but a cut in last year's level. But this is about a $14 million level above the administration's request. Now, why is that the case, Mr. Chairman? Why is not a flat level funded? I will say this, that if we look inside of this, much of this is driven by House Member requests and by the Secretary of the Interior. For example, included in this was the oil and gas development money in the Powder River Basin in Idaho and in Montana. Also, the National Petroleum Reserve, the Challenge Cost Share programs, all at the request of the Secretary and a number of our western Members that have a particular concern in these particular accounts. Just to give an example of why some of this money is needed, the land management plans now are obsolete. They have to be redone by the Secretary of the Interior. Why do we have to have a good land management plan? Because if we do not have an up-to-date, current plan, we cannot issue new permits. Remember, the purpose of a lot of these public lands is not just recreational, but actually commercial, and leasing is very important. Leasing for timber harvests, leasing for grazing permits, leasing for oil and gas. All of that cannot be permitted until we have good land management plans. So right now, what is happening is that the Secretary of the Interior is getting sued because environmental groups and groups who are not really concerned about the land, but more concerned about the encroachment of that evil free enterprise system which seems to be a problem with many members of our society today, this allows a balance between protecting the land on the Federal ledger and yet allowing the private enterprise to utilize this land, which was the original intent. We have lots of land in America that is locked up and cannot be used for any purpose except for wilderness, and some of that not even for recreational purposes. This land, though, is not in that category. But to be able to permit the full public utilization of it, we have to have a good land management plan. So this particular amendment would make it very difficult to have a good land management plan. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against it.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I wanted to just touch base, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of points about this bill. This bill is our national environmental policy in many ways because it takes the management of land, the management of resources, policies affecting energy and a number of other issues, and it cobbles together a bill which is truly bipartisan and one that represents many different kinds of philosophies. Many folks from the East have very strong opinions on this bill. Many from the West have other opinions and so this bill is actually delicately balanced and crafted. Many Members do not appreciate what goes into it, but I can assure my colleagues when we get so many Type A personalities in a body of 435 people, we are not always going to have agreement, but what we do end up with is a good bill, a bill that funds our national parks. Our national park maintenance program is far behind, a billion dollars. This helps catch them up. We lose lots of assets on our Park Services every year. It helps round out a lot of the boundaries in the Fish and Wildlife and the wildlife refuges that are overdue, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, some of the policies that have to do with Western utilization of land. One of the things that people do not get reminded enough in terms of our national forests is that the concept of national forests started under Theodore Roosevelt, and the idea was that the Federal Government cannot lock up everything, but the private sector also cannot always develop everything. The national forests are not supposed to be national parks. They are working forests, and so it is proper there for public utilization both for recreational and for commercial purposes to take place. This bill has lots of great research for energy policy. At a time when, unfortunately, our energy bill has stalled in the other body, this bill steps forward without doing a lot of good research like fuel cell technology, things like this. This balances our issues in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, health care on reservations and land disputes and title research. All of this is in there, Mr. Speaker, and I urge Members to support the rule and support the bill and let us keep our environmental policy in America moving forward.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, when I was selling football programs at the University of Georgia back when I was in junior high, I was robbed once. Two older kids beat me up and took about $100. I felt humiliated and violated. Victims of crime, and I have talked to many victims of crime, it is a very personal thing. But yet when somebody steals a worker's pension plan, their retirement money, or cooks the books and devalues the stock, there is no difference. In fact, I would say the criminals who come out of the closet and beat their victims up and take their money are, if anything, more noble than corporate CEOs who do this behind the books of accounting procedures and fancy talk, and certainly do not follow the general accounting principles. That is why this House on April 24 passed corporate accountability. There is no difference between ethics and business ethics. Businesses have to operate with honesty and integrity. We need that in society. Too many widows and orphans are counting on their stock to be the value they claim it is worth. That is why people buy it in their retirement account. I am glad that the Senate is moving on this legislation. We passed it out of the House 3 months ago, but let us get it to the conference committee so we can address corporate accountability. America needs it. Business integrity is important for the prosperity of our country.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. That $1.8 trillion is going to be paid by 70 percent of the people on a fixed income. That is incredible.

Mr. KINGSTON. Excuse me, but that is just seniors.

Mr. KINGSTON. How many people are over 65 are on a fixed income? Is it not about 70 percent?

Mr. KINGSTON. I did support the Tauzin bill, the Thomas bill, the one the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and so many others on the Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), have championed. The way I understand that bill, it is basically for a premium of about $35 a month, seniors on a voluntary basis would enroll in a program where they would take a $250 deductible, and from $250 to $1,000 Medicare would pick up 80 percent of the cost of drugs; then from $1,000 to $2,000, Medicare would pick up 50 percent; and then there is a gap, and there is a reason for that. Most of the people are going to fall under $2,000, but from $2,000 to about $3,800, the senior would pay for 100 percent. Beyond that, Medicare picks up the tab. So you have catastrophic coverage. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days having to pay $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $10,000, $20,000 a year on drugs. But so many people are in a lifestyle now where they have to take three, four, five, six pills a day. I talked to a man over the weekend or over last week at one of my 11 town meetings, and he is actually having to take 2 pills a day, $17 each. So he is having to spend each and every day $34 on just two pills. He is only 51 years old. I hope he lives 50 more years at least, but the reality is, can you imagine at age 51 having to pay $34 each and every single day? These miracle drugs are important. They have done a lot. They reduce our pain, they give us a better quality of life, they keep us out of the hospital, so there is no argument about you are going to take your medicine. But the cost of it is phenomenal. I do think that the Republican Party took a very significant first step on a bipartisan basis the week before last with the prescription drug plan. I hope that the other body will act on theirs and maybe we can get together. But the point is, we have taken a very significant step. But I certainly agree with the gentleman that the next logical step is drug reimportation.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think that it is sensible to explore both options.

Mr. KINGSTON. $1 million, 4 inches.

Mr. KINGSTON. Thirty-three miles. That is from Larry Burkett in The Coming Economic Earthquake.