Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Again, Mr. Speaker, these drugs are things that seniors are paying too much for right now. We have a woman in our office who has a relative in El Paso. To get a prescription filled in El Paso it is $90. To go over the border to Juarez is $29 for Lipitor. It is such a tremendous savings. But we see some of these drug companies, their ads are slick, they are expensive, they are enticing. I have no problem with them spending that money that way; but I do have a problem with saying we can import our tomatoes, we can import all of our other groceries from Mexico or Canada or any other country; but when it comes to drugs, even FDA-approved drugs, we have special roadblocks for that, and it hurts American consumers. We have the North American Free Trade Agreement; and by golly, we ought to be able to leave Detroit and go over to Windsor, Ontario, and buy drugs.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this, and I look forward to working with him on this legislation.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is something we should look at. Finally, this approval process, sometimes it takes as long as 8 years to get FDA to approve a new drug. We should reduce that, particularly for drugs that are often being used in European countries that are already on the market, there is a track record for them, and the FDA is still holding them up. We have to ask ourselves how many people are dying or suffering or are in pain during this approval process that had they been living in another country, then they could get access to their medicine.

Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely. There are some other things that we have talked about that we think Congress should do to continue to decrease the price of drugs. We mentioned reimportation; we mentioned the prescription drug benefit on Medicare. But there are also issues such as malpractice reform, patent reform, decreasing the time for drug approval that it takes the FDA to sign off on a new drug, and also to look into the overprescription. The gentleman may know that the University of Minnesota has actually done studies on this where they have found as high as 40 percent of the drugs taken by seniors no longer need to be taken, or the prescription is actually wrong, and that is costing millions and millions of dollars each year.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there are some companies who are actually leading the way. Eli Lilly, to their credit, has stopped this practice of going to a doctor's office and buying the whole staff lunch for the day, and then leaving them with trays and trays of free prescriptions for samples. I think Eli Lilly should be commended for leading the way into a different way of marketing, and I think other drug companies should take a look at that. I want to talk just real briefly on patents. Prozac went off patent last August, and the price of Prozac fell 70 percent. The question is, when we pay for so much of the research and development on a new drug as American taxpayers, should drug companies still be given a 17-year patent? I think that should be something that we should discuss. Maybe it should be longer. Maybe it should only be 5 years, though.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, here is a letter from a woman in Colorado who says that she actually is now getting her Tamoxifen from Canada. It took a little longer to get the prescription filled, but it is $160 savings every 2 months, $80 a month savings. That is a lot of money for somebody on a fixed income.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I will start off by yielding to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I want to say the great advantage of reimportation is not only does it save money now, it does it without a new government program, and it is a market-driven change. The gentleman often quotes Ronald Reagan, who said that markets are powerful things, more powerful than armies. Here we already have groups like Canada Meds. I am not familiar with it, but I understand it is on the Internet. Canada Meds can save American seniors right now on their prescriptions, of all of the drugs that the gentleman mentioned, 30, 40, 50 percent routinely. It is not just for people who are 65 years old. If you are a mother with three kids and they have earaches, as small children frequently do, you can save that money today. This is going to happen with or without the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. Shame on the FDA, and shame on the United States Congress for not passing a law to let the neighborhood pharmacist take advantage of these low Canadian prices.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If my friend would yield, I just want to say that quirk is, of course, there on purpose by the liberals who like to collect tax dollars and so I just wanted to emphasize a point that the gentleman has made several times in the past.

Mr. KINGSTON. That is about $85 million. Now, if I as a member of the Committee on Appropriations was asked by the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), ``Kingston, you got $85 million you can spend in your district,'' how would you do it? Would you go out and buy a bridge, would you build something for the government, a new monument? Heck, no. What you would do is spread it out as much as possible to the middle class working families in your district, and that would be one of the greatest appropriations I could bring home to the First District. So this vote tomorrow I will have the opportunity to return to my district $85 million for the local economy, for the local jobs, for the taxpayers. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has pointed out, tuition, new tires, home mortgages. That is a lot of money. I can only think of what $85 million will mean to coastal Georgia. Also, I will feel a lot better that they are spending that money, rather than the United States Congress spending it.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Minnesota earlier tonight for their leadership on it. Because right now we could be home and in bed and watching the baseball game. Somewhere I am sure the Braves are out beating somebody. But the reality is, we are doing this because we care. I am a little bit senior to both of these gentlemen, and I have served in the minority; and I can tell my colleagues that it was no fun. Because when the Republicans were in the minority, we were always fighting more spending that the Democrat majority kept pushing on us. Here is an opportunity for all Members of Congress tomorrow to go in and vote for lower taxes, less spending, and more fairness for American couples. So I certainly appreciate my colleagues for doing what they are doing and standing tall for America's families. I look forward to casting yet another vote with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). And I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his leadership in organizing this tonight.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is hard to speak with so many distinguished members of the Committee on Ways and Means here because you guys, we know, are the tax experts. But back in our little old briar patch, we know a thing or two about fairness. I do not think we even need to debate this, and the liberal Democrats would even admit that the marriage tax penalty is unfair because in essence you cannot carry your tax deduction with you. When you walk down the aisle, leave your deduction outside the church because you are fixing to lose it, as we would say. The issue, I think, that is underlying this, and I think you have covered the substance of the bill pretty well, is just the fact that the liberals, particularly those on the other side of the Capitol, and this is a bicameral body, this legislative body. It is very similar to the Georgia legislature where we had a House and we had a Senate. This is a similar institution. When the House passed something, the Senate would pass something or the Senate would amend it. In this case we have got a body who hates tax reductions. Period. Fairness does not matter, all that matters is income, so they can go out and spend more money. I always say that if I was walking down the street with two of the liberal Democrats from Washington and I had $15 in my pocket and they did not have any, the two of them would vote on who was going to pay for lunch and it would end up being me, and in their view that is fair. They did not have any money and I had money, so they voted and I have to pay for lunch, and that is fair. We all laugh about that, but I will tell you this. Look at it this way. Say you had a thousand people walking down the street or a thousand people in the room, and of that thousand people, 999 did not have any money, but one person had a whole lot of money. And so the 999 voted and said, ``You're going to be paying a little bit more, you're going to be paying extra, and you're going to be paying for all of us.'' They would say obviously that person who had money must have done something wrong, must have gotten real lucky, must have cut some corners short, and so of course it is fair. That is the view of so many Washington liberals of the tax dollars that our constituents back home make. One of our colleagues today said, if you really want to know the truth of the matter, talk to somebody who has oil on his hands or dirt on his fingers and his sleeves rolled up in America and they can give you the view, and in about 3 seconds, the American workers back home would say the marriage tax penalty is unfair and ridiculous, get rid of it. And so the only question here tonight is, why are we not getting rid of it? It is because of this other body. The House has passed this over and over again. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), as you pointed out earlier tonight, has practically made a career in this. I expect he has had a very spectacular career, made a great contribution to the governmental process, the debate process up here, but the reality is the folks on the other side of the Capitol love taxes and they block it every single time. I know our good friend from Arizona is here just chomping to get at the bit.

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I want to talk about that number a little bit. Did the gentleman not tell me earlier that in the First District of Georgia, over 65,000 people would benefit?

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. So then that is $1,400 a couple.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. The Democrats today keep talking about cost. But things do not cost you money when it is not yours. This money belongs to the taxpayer, the wage earners who made the money. That is who this is going to cost. It is not going to cost the government anything. This is confiscating less money from the taxpayers. That is what our bill does today. The Democrats talk about making theirs permanent. We wanted to make ours permanent now, not 10 years from now. It was your parliamentary procedures in the other body that caused us to expire this in 10 years or make it happen in 10 years. We want it effective now. The Democrats talk about their plan. Well, when they had the House and the majority in the Senate and the White House, did they do any estate tax relief? Of course not. The Democrats talk about Social Security and Medicare. Well, when you do not have anything to offer, you bring out the tried and true, let us talk about Social Security and Medicare and scare the folks back home, and every time you hear that you know the Dems do not have a plan. In fact, the Democrat issue of fairness is like this. Imagine you have two Democrat friends and you are walking down the street with them and you have $15 in your pocket and they do not have any. Well, they say it is lunch time. You have $15. We do not have any. Let us have a vote to see who pays for lunch. So the two of them vote. I pay for lunch with my $15 and that is fairness in their definition. You might think that is absurd, but I can promise you this. Let us say there were 10 people walking down the street, nine had no money and the tenth had all the money. Under their definition of fairness, that tenth person must have done something wrong because he has money. Therefore, let us vote the money out of his pocket and put it in ours. That is the Democrat vision of fairness. If you want to talk about fairness, come with me to Moultrie, Georgia, talk to a friend of mine who is in the small loan business. He inherited this from his dad, he and his brother. And they paid estates taxes on it about 20 years ago. They have built it up to 16 different locations. They have about 100 employees, take real good care of their employees. In fact, they own a condominium in Ferdanina Island, Florida. They let the employees use it all year long. It is one of the benefits of working with a good company that takes care of things. This guy has a daughter at the University of Georgia. Now, I asked him will she get in the family business? He said, I do not know. Because after 16 different locations, the Federal Government makes it so hard for us to continue to grow it might not be worth our while to expand any more. So one of the great problems of having estate tax is that it cripples business from future growth and doing things today. I believe we should bury the estate tax, not just for my friend in Moultrie, Georgia, for farmers all over Georgia. This bill is supported by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and many, many other commonsense associations support it. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will support the Republican plan and vote no on the Democrat substitute. And I thank my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), for listening so attentively.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I just was wondering if you all had some handouts like this one as well?

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, in an abundance of caution, why do we not do this. Why do we not just talk amongst us in the back of the room, unless the gentleman can get some time and yield it back and forth. I know we are going to have some philosophical things we cannot resolve in 15 seconds.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and say proudly our agenda is to our support our soldiers. Our agenda is for a homeland security and our agenda is to rebuild New York City, and I am proud of that agenda, and as the distinguished gentleman knows, we have got to address the debt issue, the debt ceiling issue. All this bill does is says that if the conference committee, between the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House, gives the instructing on it, it would be allowed in conference, but what does happen is we continue to supply our soldiers in the field, because no one believes, and I know the gentleman and I believe strongly, war is not free. We have got to bite the bullet in this case.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time. We disagree with taxes. We understand that. Democrats a lot of time like lots of taxes. They like a punitive tax system. They like a tax system that does not reward incentives and does not help create jobs. We had a good debate about it. In fact, that was about a 6-month debate. This debate today in this legislation is about supplying the troops to continue the war, $15.77 billion. It is about homeland security, securing our airports, securing our ports. I live in Savannah, Georgia. I would love my friend to come down and visit me sometime. Last year in Savannah, Georgia, we had 1 million containers come through the port, and only 1 percent were inspected. This bill allows us to inspect those containers. The airport, now everybody flies in this Chamber at some point in time. I want to know that when we get on the airplane that we are secure as possible. This bill allows that to happen. I will say another thing that is in this bill is $1.6 million, which I think the Democrat party would be interested in, that would allow our bicameral, bipartisan intelligence committees to continue to study 9/ 11, what went wrong, what went right, how can we do a better job; some very good stuff in there, reaching out to experts in the intelligence community. And I think these things have to go on. Now, I know we disagree on the debt ceiling vehicle part, and as an appropriator, the gentleman knows that I am not 100 percent in favor of everything that is in this bill, as I know most of us are always in the position of accepting something they do not like in a bill, but for the name of the troops, for the name of homeland security, for the name of rebuilding New York City, I am willing to let this legislation move on, let the Senate hack away at it, if they can improve it. I know there is going to be differences on there, but let us get the process moving so we do not send a mixed signal to the troops.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. KINGSTON. In 1979 the majority leader at that time, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) put in rule 49. It is on page 945 in the House Rules and Manual, and it has been done for over 2 decades, actually, until very recent years when the Republican Party quit the practice of it. Including the debt ceiling question in an appropriations bill was done for many many years. So this was not something that was not invented. It has been part of the House doing business.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.