by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Georgia), July 24, 2001
Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I believe
the gentleman from Michigan has raised a very important point for us to
ponder. Unfortunately, we kind of find ourselves as a body in a ``darned
if you do and darned if you don't situation.'' Because there are areas that
have been reported to us that the best way to get to them is through aerial
fumigation, and I think the gentleman knows that.
But it is certainly
not the intent of our Congress to hurt children, hurt livestock, hurt
crops and do inadvertent harm to the population of these countries. I
am not sure what the solution is, but I do want to say there is a reason
that we are doing this aerial fumigation, as the learned gentleman knows.
And I want to say that as a member of the committee, and I am with the
chairman on this, we want to work with the gentleman on this in any way
we can, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing it up.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr.
Chairman, has the gentleman ever heard of manual destruction of the crops
as a process?
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming
my time, yes. Unfortunately, some of the reports say in a high, mountainous
remote area, the best way to get to them is from the air because of the
I do agree that manual
destruction is superior. One thing the gentleman has not mentioned is
the pollution to the water that comes downstream when these agents are
applied. We do need to continue to work this thing through, and figure
out the best way to destroy the crops.
As of October 3, 2001,
this document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r107:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+20010724)