Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Ed Morrow was born in Manhattan eighty years ago. His father was a New York Times correspondent and Ed went to primary school in France and high school in Argentina. Fifty-four years ago Ed met Barbara in a political science class at Columbia University and they made a smart decision. They've now been married for fifty-four years. They had two children, Andy and Chris, in their home on Croton- on-Hudson, New York and were living a vibrant life.

They then made a decision, forty-one years ago, which indicated to many people that they had lost their minds.

Ed and Barbara sold their home, quit their jobs, and put all their eggs in one basket. They moved to Manchester, Vermont to open an independent book store.

These New Yorkers, Ed and Barbara, were welcomed in the rural community of Manchester with open arms. They worked hard, were friendly and open, and were bringing something that Vermonters really wanted, a bookstore. Ed and Barbara did the impossible. The Northshire bookstore they started in 1976, first located next to the Factory Point bank on Main Street in Manchester, has not only survived the ups and downs of bookselling and Internet retailing, but has thrived and become a center for community activity. Ed and Barbara were novices but they knew they made the right decision.

Forty-one years ago, when an apprehensive Vermonter asked whether the store they were fixing up ``was going to be an adult bookstore'' they were happy their focus was on children's books. Others wanted music, and Ed and Barbara provided the LPs, then the music medium.

How does a person like Ed who had no experience in the bookselling world become a master? He plunged in, along with Barbara, becoming members of the New England Book Sellers Association. Quickly, Ed became its president. They also joined the American Book Sellers Association where Ed became a board member and then president. His reputation spread. Ed was asked to travel to Eastern European countries--the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Russia--to teach their publishers and booksellers about the free enterprise system. After Ed and Barbara's sons completed their college education, they joined the Northshire bookstore team. Andy became knowledgeable about used books and Chris ultimately ran the business.

Over the years the Northshire bookstore has expanded from a tiny walk in shop to a renovated and beautiful building that was formerly the Colburn House. It stands dead center at the cross roads of Manchester, Vermont. Ed and Barbara's efforts were rewarded by a growing clientele, a wonderful enthusiastic staff, and an author reading program that contributed to the cultural vibrancy of the region and all of Vermont.

Ed and Barbara never stopped. As they were nearing ``retirement'' they responded to another unanticipated opportunity. Members of the Saratoga Springs community also wanted a bookstore, modeled after Northshire. Ed and Barbara opened what is now another thriving, independent bookstore in Saratoga Springs.

Vermonters throughout the state are celebrating the 80th birthday of Ed Morrow, a person who, with his wife, Barbara, has contributed every day to the civic life that makes small town Vermont a place of strong personal ties, civic cooperation, and intellectual ferment.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Ed Morrow, not only as a giant of Vermont, but a leader in the United States on the value and importance of independent bookstores.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

We do need tax reform. We need tax reform that we all described in the beginning as something that would help the middle class, that would simplify taxes, and would be revenue neutral. This bill, sometimes described by its authors as doing those things, accomplishes none of those things.

Now, first of all, for the middle class, wages have been stagnant. The jobs people are getting aren't paying the bills. We know the biggest challenge we face is increasing investment, increasing wages, and increasing security.

There are some benefits in this bill for the middle class, but let's get real. Those benefits are tiny and they are temporary.

If you are a Vermont family, if you are lucky--we get hit with the SALT deduction loss--you might make a couple hundred bucks.

But at what price?

Once these benefits expire, 83 percent of the benefits of the individual tax rate goes to the top 1 percent.

At what price?

$2 trillion added to the deficit.

Let me tell you this: Vermont families, hard-earning families, working families, they would like a tax cut, but not one that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. That is unconscionable.

What about these corporate tax cuts?

We want simplification, so we are competitive. There is a 40 percent reduction for multinational corporations.

But, in this bill, is there any corresponding requirement that they start reinvesting in America?

Exactly the opposite.

There is a lower tax rate for companies that invest abroad, send jobs abroad, rather than invest at home. That is outrageous.

And what happens because of this deficit?

Medicare is going to be cut directly as a result of this tax bill. The infrastructure plan we all want is evaporating.

Defeat this rule and defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleagues: What do you have against students?

This tax bill means that if an employer provides tuition assistance, the student is going to have to pay income tax on that. Students who borrow money for school have to pay interest on the loan. Students who want to get low interest rates are going to have to pay high interest rates because of the elimination of the private activity bond.

The second question I have is this: What do you have against democracy?

This bill was written in secret. There were no public hearings on this bill. Nobody had a chance to have any input. That is why, if you ask 435 Members of Congress, if they want to raise taxes on students, the answer from 435 would be ``no.'' But you have rigged this bill so that we have literally no opportunity to offer a single amendment. That is wrong.

This bill was written by and for the donor class. Let's defeat this bill and stand up for the middle class.

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the authors of this bill.

What do you have against students? You are imposing an opportunity tax. A young Vermonter who wants to get a certificate in welding, or get a degree from our community college, and gets tuition assistance from an employer, they have to pay taxes on that. If they borrow money from the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, they have to pay more because they can't deduct that interest.

By the way, the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation has to charge higher interest because we are eliminating private activity bonds, and they don't get the benefit of their municipal bonds rate.

I have another question. What do you have against teachers? They reach in their pocket at the beginning of school to help out with school supplies. They lose the deduction.

I have another question. What do you have against people who have a loved one with Alzheimer's? They can't deduct the cost of that medical care.

Well, I have another question for the Chair, and I ask it of the leadership.

What happened to democracy? We were promised an open process. And there was a model for this. It was President Reagan and Dan Rostenkowski, 4 months of actual hearings, witnesses testifying about the bill.

This was written in secret. Oh, by the way, no amendments.

Now, we could ask 435 Members of Congress whether we should stick it to the students like we are doing in this bill, and 435 of us would all stand up for the students. But you know what? Not a single one of us is given the opportunity to ask the question: Do we want to stick it to our students who want to get a welding degree or a college degree?

That is disgraceful, it is inexcusable, it is within the control of the majority, and they are denying us the opportunity.

Here is the big deal that we know. This bill was written by and for the donor class that has flooded and contaminated this political process with billions of dollars in our campaigns.

Madam Speaker, I say defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to. Just by way of introduction, I thank the ranking member for his leadership.

As the gentleman said, the biggest challenge we face in this country--and it is not a Democrat or Republican issue--is that wages have been stagnant for Americans for 20 years. They haven't had a pay raise. That is a huge challenge because the American Dream has always been premised on the fact that our parents have made an economy that has provided more opportunity for their kids.

Wages are flat. America hasn't had a pay raise in 20 years. So the fundamental question for me on a tax bill is whether that tax bill will increase opportunity for hardworking Americans. And it doesn't matter where they are

from, rural or urban. It doesn't matter what their race is. It doesn't matter what their gender or their sexual orientation is. Most Americans want to work and they want to take care of the people they love and they want to have an opportunity.

This tax bill comes up real short. By the way, I want to be somewhat self-critical of the Democrats. We haven't been where we have needed to be, oftentimes, which is for hardworking Americans, but I think we are solidly where we need to be on this tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will give the gentleman a couple of examples in explicit response to his question. I went out to a school that provided training for young Vermont men and women who wanted to become welders. That is a great job. They get out of school and they get a job that pays them good wages. They have got to borrow money in order to do that.

In some cases, they have an employer who pays their tuition. Under this tax bill, that young woman or that young man who gets tuition assistance from his or her employer has to declare that as income and pay taxes on it.

That is an opportunity tax. A lot of those folks have borrowed money. We have got a wonderful Vermont Student Assistance Corporation program. It doesn't matter whether you are a Republican child or a Democratic child, you get low interest loans. They have lost their tax deduction.

This is when they are beginning their career, so their income is not great, and they are trying to pay their bills, maybe get a condominium; maybe, if they are really lucky, get a house. They have got to pay more taxes as a result of this bill.

The other thing is private activity bonds. This is unbelievable because what those bonds are--I didn't know much about this before I came to Congress--but it is a benefit where there can be an opportunity to borrow money from the private market, by the way, in order to provide low interest rates. The people who buy these bonds get the benefit of a tax deduction in order to provide a continuing benefit to lower interest rates for kids who are trying to get a welding degree or a community college degree or a higher education degree.

We are taking that away. We are taking away opportunity. We are imposing a big tax on the opportunity for young women and men in Vermont. There is not a single Republican who would want to do that. But we don't have an opportunity in this bill to propose an amendment, to say: Hey, wait a minute. We made a mistake on this provision because we don't want the would-be welders in Alabama, the would-be welders in Texas, the would-be welders in Vermont to have to pay more in order to develop a skill that is really essential to making those joints on our bridges and doing the things that we need to rebuild our cities.

We are not allowed an opportunity to propose an amendment where every single American would know whether your Representative wanted to impose an opportunity tax on that student who wants to become a welder.

Where is the democracy in this? Where is the transparency in this?

That is what really is heartache for me. As Chairman Neal knows, we grew up in the same city and it was rough and tumble, working class, proud people, and ethnic.

We played hard in sports, and we battled all the time. But we had a kind of common pride in the value of work. We saw how hard our parents worked. We didn't necessarily notice that when we should have when we were younger. But as we grew up, we really were stunned at the kind of commitment they had to rebuilding the city that we were in and the gentleman became mayor of. We became so appreciative of the opportunity they gave us.

I grew up in a family of six kids, and how my parents did it in a small house with four bedrooms and sharing a bedroom, we didn't know. It was only after the fact that we became aware of how wonderful this opportunity was that they gave us and the sacrifices that they made.

Isn't it our job in this House of Representatives to give everybody the same opportunity to the experience that Mr. Neal had, that Mr. Lipinski had, and that I had? That was on the shoulders of parents who sacrificed for our benefit.

So the bottom line for me on this tax bill is whether it enhances the opportunity of every American striver, every American who wants to become better, more contributing, more of an active citizen, more of an accomplished adult, and more of a contributor to our workforce. Does this bill help them achieve that or does it impede them from doing that?

When I look just at one specific provision where we say that students are going to have to pay taxes on the interest that they pay on their student loan or when a student who earns, in fact, a scholarship or a fellowship to go advance their higher education and they have to pay income tax on that, I am truly horrified because this country--and this is not a Republican-Democratic deal--is all based on the optimism that, if we give people opportunity, it will benefit all of us. It will benefit that individual who is there to seize that opportunity and make the best of what they can do and, therefore, build the country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the ranking member's efforts on this.

Mr. Speaker, speaking to my chairman, Chairman Walden, I accept your commitment and your leadership on insuring children, but I am speaking to you because I reject the argument that, in order to fund a health insurance program that all of us support, we have to compromise health programs that benefit many other people, including in Vermont. Let me just give an example.

The prevention program in Vermont is really helping people stay well. We had $922,000 that was spent on immunization programs for our kids. We had $377,000 for lead poisoning prevention. Lead poisoning is brutal. We had $372,000 for heart disease prevention and control, and we had over $209,000 for diabetes and prevention control.

So I acknowledge your commitment. I acknowledge the urgency with which your side and our side supports CHIP. But why is it that, if we support it, we don't pay for it? And instead of paying for it directly, coming up with ways to eliminate waste in the healthcare system, we take away our ability to immunize, to prevent lead poisoning, to reduce heart disease? That is my question. The answer for me would be that we go where the waste is.

The answer to me would be that our committee engages in addressing the waste in healthcare, including high prescription drug costs, rather than take it out of good programs.

Mr. Speaker, the issue here about Medicare is one where there is universal support in this body for that program that was passed in 1965 by a bipartisan vote. It is a lifeline for many of our seniors--for all of our seniors. It is a program where, since everybody pays, everybody benefits. It gives all of us confidence that our parents or ourselves will have access to good healthcare.

We have a challenge. The cost of healthcare in this country is far too expensive, and it is for a variety of reasons that our country spends twice as much on healthcare as most industrialized countries in the rest of the world and we don't get better results for that.

The challenge for us, if we want to save healthcare, particularly Medicare, is to start focusing on reforms that bring the cost of healthcare down and don't compromise quality.

The Affordable Care Act extended access to healthcare for millions of Americans, but it also included some steps that began bending the cost curve. The rate of growth in the Medicare spending has started to come down under the Affordable Care Act. It was patient-centered programs, it was accountable care organizations, it was value-based payment systems. These things where, for the first time, Congress talked not just about extending access, but trying to reform payment systems so that we could get the benefit of a more efficient system.

The IPAB is simply one of the potential tools that would be used in order to present to Congress recommendations. Unlike what Mr. Walden said, it would be the final say of Congress whether we wanted to approve or not any recommendation by the IPAB.

Here is the difference in how we are approaching healthcare. Many in this body on the Republican side have focused on the cost of healthcare, its contribution to the debt. The policy proposal in the form of repealing the Affordable Care Act, its way of reducing the cost of healthcare was to take healthcare away from 24 million Americans. That is what that bill did.

That is one way to control the cost of healthcare, have people go without. It is the wrong way. We all know that. We have got to bite the bullet here and start addressing the fact that we spend too much. Some of it is wasteful procedures, some of it is gaming the system, some of it is these incredible maneuvers by drug companies.

I am just going to give one example because I want to give this example as an indication of how right before our eyes bad things are happening that we are allowing to occur.

HUMIRA, a very good drug by AbbVie. Their patent was expiring. That patent is legislatively provided to give them exclusive marketing and selling rights. They have a monopoly price. It is incredibly expensive, like $70,000 for a supply.

Amgen had a biosimilar that was going to be marketed, and then you would have the benefit of competition. The price would go down.

AbbVie and Amgen made a deal. We don't know how much AbbVie paid to Amgen, but suddenly Amgen is not going to bring its generic, in effect, to market until 2023, but--and this is part of their agreement--they are going to sell their biosimilar product in Europe now.

Mr. Speaker, Europe is going to get the benefit of that lower price and the United States is not.

My question to my colleagues--it is not just about the IPAB. It is about let's get real. Let's get real on drug prices. Let's get real on the fee-for-service as opposed to value-based system. Let's get real on cracking down on Medicare fraud. Let's get real on focusing on the cost side, where all of us acknowledge bad things are happening. This fear of these ``unelected bureaucrats,'' where it is 15 people who, at the end of the day, whatever recommendation they want to make to us, force us to make a hard decision as to whether it is a good recommendation or a bad recommendation.

We are in charge. This is going to be rammed down our throat, but what it does force us to do is start looking where the money is; rip- off drug prices, excessive procedures that actually create medical risk.

Mr. Speaker, we do have a challenge of healthcare cost in this country, but the focus has to be on improving the delivery system and taking the rip-off pricing out of the system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say three things about this budget:

First, deficits matter. Deficits matter. This budget explicitly raises the deficit. It admits to $1.5 trillion, more likely $2.5 trillion. That means that

our children and our grandchildren are going to be the ones paying for the deficit that is added.

Second, process matters. We are hearing a lot of talk about tax reform, but there has been no process. There is no bill, and we are about to vote on a so-called tax reform package that has not been explicitly printed to paper. This is no way to do any business. We are making it up as we go along, and it is the same process that was used on healthcare. We went into committee with no bill and came out, 27 hours later, with 24 million people losing healthcare. There has been no process on this.

And third, details matter, and the details that are leaking out are very punishing to the middle class. Anybody who is an income tax payer in a State, a property tax payer in a State, is going to lose that deduction.

It is very tough on middle class efforts to save for retirement. That is in play. Folks' deductions on their Keogh plans, their 401(k) plans, are very much a part of the process that is going to lower this.

Reject this plan.

Mr. Chairman, I want to state to my colleagues on this budget that there are two fundamental assumptions that are being made that need to be challenged.

One, you are saying that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This country is spending on domestic priorities and defense at a level that existed when the President of the United States was Dwight D. Eisenhower, and that was before Medicaid and Medicare.

We have a significant issue about how we are going to meet the needs of the people of this country, both on defense, where we need some help, but definitely on the domestic side as well.

The second assumption that you are making--and it is an assertion that is made over and over again--is that tax cuts will pay for themselves. That is the theology of your budget: tax cuts pay for themselves.

You know, why not go to zero, and we will all be rich?

That is essentially what is being said here. But the tax cuts are always at the high end of the income spectrum, which is exacerbating inequality and creating a problem for us to meet essential needs in this country.

So this question of tax cuts paying for themselves and fiscal responsibility, let's have a little bit of history here. This was the theology of George Bush when he passed the tax cuts when he became President. They did not pay for themselves. We went from the Clinton- era surpluses to the Bush-era deficits, and in another fiscally, grossly irresponsible move, he put the war on the credit card.

The war was on the credit card. We had unpaid-for tax cuts and we had an unpaid-for war. And this is not just fiscal responsibility; this is governmental, personal, congressional irresponsibility. You have got to pay for things. Whether it is the war or it is food stamps or it is any program that you want to pick, you have got to pay for it.

You don't pay for it by the magic asterisk of saying, ``the tax cuts that we propose,'' when we are going to spend by cutting taxes or going into a war that we don't pay for, $1 trillion, it doesn't work. And that is why we are in this path that is very dangerous with respect to the long-term debt.

I believe in that. We have got to pay our bills. When we had the majority, we had a doctrine that said: Pay as you go.

If any Democrat, the budget chair, or me wanted to propose some spending, we either had to come up with the revenue or we had to cut somewhere else. I believe in that.

But I don't believe in unpaid-for tax cuts paying for themselves. I don't believe that more spending pays for itself

and we can just put it on the credit card.

Now, we have got some problems and challenges in this country. We have got an opportunity problem.

Mr. Chairman, kids going to school get out with a debt the size of a mortgage. We have got an inequality problem. It has never been worse. It goes back to the Great Depression, when we had this divide between what hardworking people made and what the top 1 percent made.

We have got a healthcare affordability problem, but you don't solve that by slashing access to healthcare and throwing 24 million people off of healthcare. We have got an infrastructure problem that we are totally neglecting. It is not addressed in this budget.

We have got a DREAMer problem.

How is it that, in this Congress, we are literally not allowing 800,000 young people who came here, through no fault of their own, not voluntarily, and we are going to give them the hook and deport them?

It is outrageous?

We have got a rural America problem. Rural America has been left behind. The inequality in this country is really hitting hard on rural America, in parts of Vermont, and in all parts of this country. And there is nothing in this budget that says: We are going to give hope to rural America by investing in them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Alliance to Save Energy on reaching its 40th anniversary and recognize their tireless efforts to improve the energy efficiency and increase the energy productivity of the United States. For four decades, the Alliance has worked with members of the House and Senate, of both parties, and every President and administration to find common ground around the idea of ``using less and doing more''. The Alliance has contributed to every major and minor piece of legislation dealing with energy efficiency passed by Congress and enacted into law since 1977. Simply put, without the Alliance, our economy would use more energy and do so less efficiently and productively.

The Alliance is a national, not-for-profit, public-policy organization that works on a bipartisan basis with policymakers and with prominent leaders in the fields of business, education, the environment and sustainability, and consumer affairs. The Alliance focuses its efforts on policies that promote the efficient use of energy throughout the world to benefit the economy, environment, and security of the United States. And to do so, it leverages its own network to cultivate coalitions that endure for years.

Over the past 40 years, energy efficiency policies pursued and conservation measures taken by the United States have caused annual energy consumption to decrease by more than 60 quads (quadrillion British thermal units) and saved American consumers and businesses $800 billion annually. And since the Alliance's establishment by Senators Charles Percy of Illinois and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota in 1977, the United States has doubled its energy productivity, which means that today our economy produces twice as much gross domestic product per each unit of energy consumed. That is staggering, especially when considering the myriad ways the energy sector has evolved and our own lives, behaviors, and habits have changed.

Energy efficiency has enjoyed bipartisan support since the first policies were enacted in the wake of the oil crises of the 1970s. And much of that support hinges on the fact that energy efficiency is a reliable engine of job creation. Today, according to the United States Department of Energy, the energy efficiency sector now employs 2.2 million Americans. In Vermont, about 9,000 men and women are employed in the energy efficiency sector. Over half of this workforce is employed by small businesses. And in most cases, these are local jobs that are not readily exported or handled by workers overseas.

For the past four years, I have been a member of the Alliance's Honorary Board. My involvement in the Alliance's work reflects my belief in the importance of federal energy efficiency policy. It also lends me a platform to work with my colleagues to find bipartisan solutions to many challenges facing our modern--and modernizing--energy sector. I am honored to serve on the Alliance's Honorary Board along with colleagues Representatives Michael Burgess of Texas, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, David McKinley of West Virginia, Dave Reichert of Washington, and Paul Tonko of New York.

The Alliance should be proud of its first 40 years. But the next 40 years will be even more important as we advance the energy efficiency policies we need to address the unprecedented challenge of global climate change. The Alliance and its diverse and committed coalition will be on the leading edge of what comes next in energy efficiency. It is my privilege to be part of the Alliance's efforts. Congratulations to Alliance on its 40 years of achievements, and good luck for its future endeavors.

Mr. Chair, in communities across the country, our infrastructure is falling apart. This fact was highlighted once again when the American Society of Civil Engineers released its 2017 Infrastructure Report Card which gave our nation's infrastructure a D+ rating. That is not acceptable and we must do better.

One area of particular concern is the state of our nation's dams. In far too many communities, darns are in danger of breaching. As we recently saw at the Oroville Dam in California, dam breaches can cause catastrophic consequences to the surrounding communities.

Last year, Congress took a positive step to address this issue with the passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation (WIIN) Act. In particular, Section 1177 of the WIIN Act authorized funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to begin working to rehab some of our nation's oldest, Corps-constructed dams that are classified as ``high hazard potential''. As many of you know, the failure of a dam that is classified as high-hazard potential is anticipated to cause loss of life.

While Section 1177 is a positive start, it needs to be funded so the Corps can get to work. My amendment would simply direct the Army Corps to use existing funds within its Construction Account to implement this provision up to its authorized level of $10 million.

Both parties agree we need to improve our infrastructure. This is a modest proposal to address some of the most outdated, hazardous dams in the country.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would--it is shocking that it would have to even do this--prohibit spending money on these Afghan uniforms that met the sartorial taste of a general that corresponded to lush tropical forests. Number one, what the general wants for sartorial splendor of his troops is not our problem. Number two, his sartorial taste had to do with tropical forests, which is not what we have in Afghanistan.

I am very happy that General Mattis himself was outraged by this, and I applaud him. But it is an opportunity for us to express our outrage as well.

We all want to support our men and women in uniform, and we all want them to have good uniforms. But it is not up to an Afghan general to take taxpayer money on a vanity project that ultimately undercuts the security of our troops.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe I speak for everyone. Let's not do it.

Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 407, 408, and 409. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call 407, Nay on Roll Call 408, and Aye on Roll Call 409.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to acknowledge the good work of Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith in the Armed Services Committee. As my colleague from Alabama said, there is nothing more important than having a secure national defense to protect the American people.

But this bill does have problems. Many of them are not created by the Armed Services Committee. They are created by us in Congress.

It has been catastrophic for us to have the millstone of the Budget Control Act that is limiting the ability of Congress to make decisions about where to spend more or where to spend less, and two things are happening as a result of that.

Number one, we abdicate our responsibility. In some places we should be spending more, but in many other places we should be spending less.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we put in straitjackets our managers at the Pentagon and in other programs because we micromanage where they must spend money. If we are going to give them a challenge-- the budget cap right now is $549 billion; this bill suggests that we spend close to $700 billion--we have got to give them managerial flexibility and stability.

The Budget Control Act is the ``Budget Paralysis Act.'' That is on all of us here in Congress.

Now, a second thing, this bill, in that context, where we are going to blow through that cap but do nothing about our ability to make decisions on the taxes and spending, means that this gets cut totally out of domestic spending. In my view, General Mattis' view is that is bad for national defense.

We plus-up the Defense budget, but we take a hatchet to the State Department budget, not something that you can address in the Armed Services bill, I understand. But the effect of it, as General Mattis said: We have to buy more bullets.

So this is a symptom of the problem that we have got to face squarely.

The other issue in this bill is that it hasn't given us a policy of what is our exit strategy in Afghanistan.

What is our policy?

We are sleepwalking into an escalation. That has failed us before. We have to have that debate now.

Where is the money coming from?

$150 billion is just going to magically appear. No discussion about that.

And this bill does not acknowledge the absolute vital importance of domestic and diplomatic programs to our national security.

I applaud the committee and the chairman and the ranking member for some very good work they did. I criticize us in Congress for putting the straitjacket on them so they can't do the job right.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, our ranking member, Dr. Burgess, and Mr. Green.

Facilitating the approval of these drugs, having the FDA work in a safe and constructive way, and having a quicker turnaround time is all really good. It is really important. I thank them for their leadership. This is something that had to be done. It is going to benefit everyone.

I want to talk about another issue that we didn't address but we did debate, and that is the high cost of prescription drugs.

In this legislation, on the one hand, we are accommodating a reasonable request by the pharmaceutical industry for a fast and efficient approval process; but on the other hand, we are denying any relief to consumers who are getting absolutely hammered day in and day out with unjustified price increases because of the pricing power of the pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, they do do good things, life-extending and pain-relieving drugs, but that doesn't justify grinding consumers into the dust who can't afford the cost of these prescriptions, where it is just within reach that they can provide relief to their family.

We know how much pharmaceutical prices have been going up. It is hurting our employers, who are working hard to provide good healthcare to their employees. It is hurting taxpayers.

But every single one of us has met a constituent like a mom who is struggling with this choice of trying to afford something she can't afford or risk a loss she would never endure. I am talking about the EpiPen; $600 to get an EpiPen here in the United States.

Mylan makes that. They are a Netherlands-based company now. They moved over there for tax reasons. In the Netherlands, you can get it for $100. This isn't justified. The chairman, the ranking member, and I know this.

When Elijah Cummings and I met with President Trump, he knows it. He talked about the rip-off pricing. He talked about the possibility of importation of safe drugs from Canada as a way of getting some price pressure on these companies.

We have got the committee that can address this. I would like us to do that.