Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. It stops the practice of not being able to buy the same drug for a cheaper price in Canada?

Mr. KINGSTON. One thing that he has done a lot for, that I think that it is important to talk about in terms of getting everybody at the table, because when we were passing welfare reform we were accused of pushing children out in the street, pushing women out in the street. The President vetoed the bill twice, and then as soon as it turned out to be a success, 40 percent of the people on welfare got jobs and liked those jobs, then the President went around saying it was his bill, which is fine. If that is the way the system works, let us do another bill like that. What I think the gentleman has been good at is getting everybody in on it, pushing for an education system where no child is left behind and saying, as the gentleman has pointed out, America's prosperity is the envy of the world, but there are people in the world who are not sharing in that prosperity. We are saying we want to invite them to the table, and we are going to show them a pathway to the table, and we are going to help them get to the table so that they too can enjoy this great land and negotiate for a better America. I think that is something that we do not talk about. The gentleman has reached out to the children who are at risk, and I think that that is something that we need to always keep in mind for the next generation.

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman has been a leader in something that I want to talk about in terms of why not the best and in terms of common sense legislation, and that is the fact that our Food and Drug Administration has prohibited our senior citizens from buying drugs, prescription drugs, medicine, in Canada, which is sold at a lower price than it is in America. I have a chart with some of these price differences on it, but I thought the gentleman might want to explain that because I think it is so important to our seniors and to the family members.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I wanted to point this out. Jimmy Carter wrote a book in the 1970s called Why Not the Best? And he talked about rethinking. So many of the things that we do routinely in government, and I think that even though we had philosophical differences of what that blueprint should be, that is what, in fact, happened in 1994. I think it took many years with ideas like the challenge of Jimmy Carter, Why Not the Best; and then Ronald Reagan saying, good morning America, bringing out the best news. Now, in this day of great prosperity, the day of great medicine, great technology, great entertainment, great food supply, we still need to get to that next level in a government where our priorities have been very focused in the last 5 years. We protect and preserve Social Security. We protect and preserve Medicare. Then we pay down the debt for the next generation, and then the change. If we go to WalMart and we buy $7 hamburger and we give $10 at the counter, they are going to give us $3 back. The Federal Government, if we get a congressional cashier, he is going to keep the change and give us some more nails and all kinds of things we did not ask for. We are stopping that. To go after great communities, where the kids can walk the streets late at night not having to worry about drug pushers and crime. Education, where teachers in the classroom are getting the money, not the bureaucrats in Washington. Just think about every dollar we spend on education, 50 cents never leaves this city. That is something we have got to change. Our constituents would never put up with that in the private sector. It is outrageous.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 558, the resolution just adopted. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the chairman of the Morning Prayer Breakfast each Thursday, for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the deputy whip.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, it is times like this and many other times when one is dealing with Paul Coverdell that one no longer thinks of him as a United States Senator. One does not think of him as one of the most influential men in America. One thinks of him just as Paul, Paul and Nancy Coverdell, two friends whom we have all worked with over the years, whom we have all known and respected. One thing about Paul is one may agree or disagree with him, but one always respects his energy level, his knowledge of the issue, and the way he is so focused in attacking things. We are all his friends. He is a friend of the institution, and he is a friend of the governmental process, somebody who respects everyone and has that respect both ways. Our prayers are with him, and that is the best that we can all do at this time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in Savannah, we are blessed. My wife's grandmother, 97-year-old Betty Carswell is still alive and in good health. She is on Social Security and she needs it. When I was a boy, growing up down the street my good friend Ross Fox's dad died, and when he died, leaving Mrs. Fox with two young boys to take care of, Social Security was there to protect them. Yet today Social Security is in trouble. By the year 2030, it will be out of money. There are six positive steps we can take, however, to protect and preserve Social Security. Number one is to have some principles, to say that the benefits for current retirees and near retirees will not be increased; number two, to lock away the Social Security surplus so that the money will not be spent on roads and bridges but used only for Social Security; number three, taxes for Social Security should not be increased; number four, the government should not invest Social Security funds in the stock market; number five, modernization of Social Security should not change the disability and survivors' components for friends like Ross Fox, who lose their loved one, their parents; number six, a portion of the Social Security account should be personalized so that younger people on a voluntary basis would have the option of putting theirs in an interest-bearing account which earns more money than Social Security. Mr. Speaker, we can do this. We can have a good voluntary program to set up to protect and preserve Social Security. Our seniors need this and our future generations.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond, what we would like to do is continue working with the gentleman on these important projects because we know the gentleman's interest in them; and the gentleman is correct, there are a number of worthy projects here. The gentleman as an advocate of agriculture, the gentleman as an advocate of peanuts, the gentleman has worked hard for research, because it does not just have impact in Georgia; but it does nationally and not just for farmers who are in need of help right now, but for consumers who want to make sure that they have an abundant and safe food supply. So we will continue working with the gentleman in the conference arena. It is also my understanding that the gentleman has secured some funding from another body which we will endeavor to match on the House side. I will be on the conference committee, and I will work with the gentleman on this.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). Perhaps we can proceed that way.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield to me. Mr. Chairman, the Federal government not only pays SE testing costs, it also pays the cost of mandatory inspection for meat, poultry, and for processed egg products. Moreover, in the frequently-cited Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, the State government pays testing costs. Some have mentioned E coli testing, but that is not a problem in eggs. In short, almost all the relevant precedents support public funding. There are several other points on which I cannot agree with the gentleman's characterization of the amendment, but it will be more productive to describe the informal discussions to which he has also referred. Egg producers continue to support the Kingston amendment. However, they also have been reassured during these informal discussions by statements from the FDA about the agency's current thinking on egg safety regulation. The egg producers feel that FDA's current intentions are considerably more reasonable than was implied in the egg safety action plan when it was released in December. I am prepared to negotiate during the conference, and the egg producers are prepared to support, a compromise package. We cannot know the outcome of conference negotiations for certain because we cannot control the Senate. However, both the producers and I promise our best efforts towards a compromise. Our position will be as follows: Producers would conduct an environmental test when flocks are 40 to 45 weeks of age. They would pay for this test. If additional environmental tests were required, that could only be on the basis of sound science, and then the costs would be publicly funded. In addition, the FDA would need to consider the amount of testing required in current national and State quality assurance programs in establishing testing requirements. Secondly, eggs will only be required to be diverted into processing based on positive egg tests, which would be required if an environmental test was positive. Producers would pay for the egg tests. Although this would not be part of the statutory language, we expect that the egg labeling proposal from last July will be substantially modified to take into account comments received. In addition, we expect that the FDA will consider adding such important steps as vaccination into its protocols for quality assurance programs. We have discussed other important issues such as trace-backs, the safety aspects of grading programs, and consistent enforcement of the rules, and expect that these can be dealt with also. I believe this is an accurate and complete description of the concepts that we have discussed with the FDA, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), consumer advocates, and others.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will work with the gentleman and want to make sure that everybody is on board. We will move towards that. There are obviously no guarantees, but I am confident that we can come up with a good solution for all parties.

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

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New Mexico will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his interest in working with us. I wanted to say also we will gladly do a colloquy with the gentleman on this. First of all, it is important to keep the burden of the solution in proportion to the problem. According to the President's egg safety plan, only one in 20,000 eggs contain Salmonella enteritis, and the presence of this bacteria in a raw egg alone does not guarantee illness upon consumption. Secondly, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of reported deaths from this type of Salmonella in eggs during 1999 was zero. Third, if we cook the egg, the risk is zero. As the gentleman can imagine, I disagree with some of his interpretations of our amendment. For example, the Kingston amendment does not prohibit environmental testing, nor does it require that such testing be limited to 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the life of the flock. The language is not that specific. In addition, in responding to the gentleman's comments on SE testing, I simply note that the Federal government not only pays SE testing costs, it also pays the cost of mandatory inspections for meat, for poultry, and for processed eggs.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak in favor of the amendment, and I do so with the greatest respect, of course, to the committee upon which I serve. But if we look at the seniors who are having to go across the border to get prescription drugs and other people who need it, they are not doing this because it is convenient, they are not doing it because they want to, they are not doing it because they want to support a Canadian pharmacy. They are doing it because they have to economically. My dad is from Buffalo, New York, and I went to school in Michigan, and I know on those border States there is a lot of economic overlap and social overlap and everything else, and so for them to go to Canada to get cheaper drugs is not that unusual. But then imagine being 82 years old and getting a letter like this that says, however, future shipments of these or similar drugs may be refused admissions; that is very disturbing if we have to take something for high cholesterol or something for a heart condition. What am I doing? These people are World War II veterans. They do not want to go around breaking the law, and that is what the implication is from FDA once they get it. Mr. Chairman, look at these price differences. I think we cannot expect people who can save as much as 50 percent on a drug not to take advantage of it and to go overseas. But the second question about this is why are the drugs so less expensive in Canada than they are here, and I think that is where it becomes a universal quest for States that are not on the border. I mean, we need to know how come we can get Prozac for $18.50 and over here, it is $36. For Claritin, $44 versus $8.75. Prilosec, $109 versus $39.25. We owe it to our constituents. Even if they are in Iowa, in the middle of the country geographically, if we are in a central State, domestically, in the United States of America, we would still need to know and we need to be able to tell our constituents why these drug prices are so different. That is why I am supporting this amendment. I think, number one, we have to give people on the border States an opportunity; number two, we have to explore what are these differences, and this will help promote that debate.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for yielding me the time to speak. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this bill. I think this bill is philosophically in line with the objectives of this Congress in that it has common sense fiscal responsibility and balances social needs, agriculture-business needs. This Congress, on a bipartisan basis in 1997, signed off on a budget that said these will be our priorities. We are going to protect and preserve the Social Security system, and we have done that. We now have a surplus in Social Security. We said, number two, we are going to protect and preserve Medicare, and we have done that. Many of us remember working very hard in somewhat shock after the 1995 Medicare trustee's report came out saying Medicare would be bankrupt in 3 years if we did not act to do something on it. Well, this Congress on a bipartisan basis did do something, and now we have protected and preserved Medicare. The next priority is to pay down the debt, and this Congress has paid down over $350 billion in debt relief. As a result of this fiscal responsibility, this common sense approach to governing, we now have a budget surplus. This surplus, Mr. Chairman, should not be squandered on more government expansion and political initiatives designed to corral in another constituency group. It should be very careful to keep in mind that the money that we spend here in this Chamber does not belong to us. The Government has no money. The money belongs to the people, the hard-working taxpayers. So with that approach in mind, we have a budget here on agriculture and related agencies of about $76 billion. Now, half of that money goes to feeding programs, nutrition programs, funding for the poor feeding-type programs, nutrition for the poor, people who are socially disadvantaged. Half the money goes to that. I make that point, because so many people look at agriculture from the cities and they sneer and they say, $76 billion for farmers. Guess what? It does not go to farmers. Half of the money goes to children in inner cities, and they need it; the other balance of that goes to, among other agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, very careful, each one of us take medicines, have a loved one that takes medicines. This bill funds that. Farm service agencies, conservation reserves and also research gets the balance of that money; very few dollars go directly to the farmers. Let me say something on behalf of America's farmers. We have less than 2 percent of our population today who are directly farming. We have maybe a little bit more, if we count the romantic farmer, and I would say that would be somebody who works in the city and has a 40- hour-a-week job, but they have inherited some land or they have that gnawing that we all have, they want to have a piece of property and they want to work with their hands. They are part-time farmers. They often skew the statistics of who is out there actually farming and who is not. Certainly if they have some acres under cultivation, it goes into food, it is part of food production. The true farmers, Mr. Chairman, are less than 2 percent these days and, yet, that small sector of our population feeds 100 percent of us and a great portion of the rest of the world, and we can feed more of the world. I think that our farmers need eight things as we debate agriculture policy: Number one, they need good credit; number two, they need a crop insurance program that works; number three, they need good conservation programs; number four, they need good specialty programs; number five, they need market relief, international market relief; number six, they reed regulatory relief; number seven, they need tax relief; and number eight, they need good basic research. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just elaborate a little bit more on this, and I will try to go quickly. We on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies are limited as to what we can do with need number one, credit. But we can work with institutions, and we can work through our other committees. We can work with the private sector to try to say one of the big things we hear day in and day out from our farmers is the need for long-term credit. Just like any other business, they are at risk. They invest money. The return comes when they harvest, sometimes the return is not there because of disaster, but they need long-term and short- term credit. Number two, they need a good crop insurance program. A crop insurance program that is based on the cost of production, a crop insurance program that rewards them for good farming practices which reduce losses, and crop insurance that would serve them the same way a commercial business is served by commercial and fire insurance; something that is understandable. Number three, conservation programs. Just think how much money we could save during a farm disaster, during the time of a drought if we had money available for irrigation systems, smart farming systems, and for building dams. If farmers could get water on a regular basis and get it abundantly and inexpensively, it would truly reduce the costs of farm disasters. Number four, as I said before, we need specialty programs, good specialty programs. I come from peanut country. It is amazing the number of people that say well, the peanut program is a strange ag program; that is not unusual. A lot of ag programs are very hard and complex to understand. I can say this, do we know what it does? It makes it possible for the young couple to stay on the farm and not move off to Atlanta, Georgia and sell real estate or not to move to Savannah and become a medical doctor, but it makes it possible for them to have a steady cash flow and stay on the farm. It makes it possible for the consumers of America to have a cheap and abundant supply of peanuts; the same is true with all the other myriad of specialty programs. Number five, they need market relief. When we can buy oats at the Port of Brunswick, Georgia cheaper than we can raise them in Millen, Georgia, we have a problem. Even with all the greatest of farm technology, we should be able to grow oats cheaper domestically than importing them. Because some of our international ag competition subsidizes their farmers heavily, it makes our farmers have a disadvantage in the marketplace. We do need to have market relief. Market promotion is part of that. I love the idea that my district's vidalia onion can be eaten and bought all over the world because they are the best and most delicious onions that have ever been made. We all know that. The folks all over the globe ought to be eating them. We need to have a program that promotes them and lets our farmers develop markets overseas. Number six, regulatory relief. It is not fair for our farmers to be restricted in what kind of fertilizer, what kind of pesticides they can use when farmers south of the border in Mexico or north of the border in Canada or wherever else can use the same fertilizers that are banned here. We need to work with our international partners. If a fertilizer is bad here, it ought to be bad anywhere in the globe; and we should be protected from those markets dumping on our farmers. Number seven, tax relief. If we do not have estate or a death tax relief, that farm cannot be passed on to the next generation. It is economically prohibitive. Number eight, we need good research. This bill will always catch a lot of grief. Oh, they are spending millions or thousands of dollars to study the mating habits of some obscure fly or a worm. That makes a good little press hit and a good humorous article in Reader's Digest or a great one-liner for Jay Leno, but the reality is a lot of the times ag research can save American consumers millions of dollars in lowering the cost of production.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have a Vice President who wants to do away with the internal combustion engine. And I guess that is fine, for the inventor of the Internet, who thinks all the world should go to the office on the information highway. But with that information in mind, for the past 7 years we have had an administration that has locked up the strategic oil petroleum reserves in America, choking off our own domestic supply. We have had an administration who has taken great pride in blowing up dams out West, even though we get 10 percent of our energy from hydropower. And we have an administration who has closed off our oil pipelines in Alaska. As a result, today Americans are paying anywhere from 50 cents to 75 cents to $1 a gallon higher at the pump. It does not have to be this way. We need to have a coherent, cohesive energy policy that says if we need to be weaned from this evil internal combustion engine, let us do it so we do not have the hardships that we have at the pump for the American middle-class family. I think we should repeal the 18 cents per-gallon gas tax and give Americans some relief.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me this time. I too rise to join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the other Democrats who are helping us pass and support this bipartisan bill. I am doing that in the name of some constituents of mine, Brian and Sue Doe in Vidalia, Georgia. Now Mr. Doe is retired from the police force, and Mrs. Doe is retired from the Piggly-Wiggly Grocery Store chain. They are on a fixed income, $20,000 a year. They do not know what procedural motions are, motions to rise, motions to adjourn. In fact, it would be funny for them to figure why would people who are paid $136,000 a year vote to adjourn and quit working at 11:00 in the morning. But that is Washington. Here is what they know, and here is what they are real experts on. On their fixed income they have to pay about $8,200 a year for prescription drugs, $8,200. Anything from Lipitor for his cholesterol to something for her heart murmur; and they know that these expensive drugs, this one right here at $10 a shot, that they have to take three or four times a week, they know under this plan, this bipartisan plan today, it will go down from $10 to about $6. They know that $8,200 a year will go down to $6,000; even more than that. They know that they will have the choice of plans. They know that this will not get in the way of their doctor relationship. They will still have a doctor-patient relationship, and they know they will be able to go to the neighborhood pharmacist still, and they think this is very important because they do not really want a one-size cookie cutter Washington bureaucracy getting into their drug cabinet and telling them how to live. It is very important for the Does in Vidalia, Georgia, for the folks in Savannah, Georgia, for the people in Miami, for the people in Maine, for the people in San Francisco. It is time to come together and put seniors over politics, and that is why I support this bill today.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, that we will be happy to work with this committee as the process continues to make sure that there are enough funds to do this, because we think that it is important. I know the gentleman has been a leader in this also. So we will be glad to work with him. We do have another amendment that affects the Secretary of Energy in a similar way.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is anybody opposed to this or not. I hope this is a constructive amendment. All it simply asks is that the Office of Inspector General give us a study of the economic basis of the recent gasoline price increases, and this is just because we are not exactly sure what all caused the increases from the $1.20 range as high as the $2.80 per-gallon range. And that is all we are trying to do, not fingerpoint.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunt) and I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for their support of this amendment. I want to say that what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, on a bipartisan basis is send a signal out to any employee who works at Los Alamos in a sensitive area who refuses to take a polygraph test that we believe the security of our Nation is more important than their personal pride or whatever conflict they may have that prevents them from doing this. We are just saying, you have to do it, that is part of taking care of our nuclear secrets. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.