Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives adjourns for the next six weeks, I am proud to rise on behalf of more than 111,000 of my constituents who are of Polish descent in the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois on Chicago's northwest side. It is my privilege to join with friends of Poland and people of Polish descent around the world who will join together to commemorate the Warsaw Uprising.

On their behalf, it is my honor to have introduced H. Con. Res. 470, recognizing the anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising during World War II. It was 60 years ago this August when ordinary Polish citizens, fighting against overwhelming odds and extreme hardships, took up arms against their German oppressors.

Counting on Allied forces to assist in the impending liberation of Warsaw, the Underground Home Army launched its attack against German forces in an attempt to win back their country. Heavily outnumbered and armed mostly with homemade weapons, the Polish resistance fought bravely and heroically for 63 days.

On the verge of victory but with Allied forces still far from the scene, their fates were sealed when the Germans reinforcements arrived. Ultimately, 250,000 civilians and troops were killed and in the wake of the uprising's outcome, centuries-old buildings, monuments and cultural treasures were systematically destroyed by the Germans.

To this day, the courage and valor demonstrated by the Polish resistance stands as a symbol to the spirit of the Polish people and remains a shining example of the world's greatest challenges to fascism and oppression. Polish citizens can be proud of the men and women who fought in this landmark chapter of Poland's resistance, and proud of their resolve and belief in freedom.

Today, this resolution serves another purpose. It reaffirms the special relationship between United States and Poland and the unwavering bond-that exists among our two peoples. I offer this resolution as a symbol of gratitude for Poland's friendship and for standing shoulder to shoulder with our troops in Iraq and where the global war against terror is waged.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation shares and appreciates Poland's values and democratic ideals of liberty and human rights. The same indomitable spirit that was alive 60 years ago remains strong in the Polish consciousness today.

Madam Speaker, as a proud member of the Illinois delegation in which Bob Michel served with honor and distinction for nearly 4 decades, I rise as an original cosponsor and in strong support of naming the ``Bob Michel Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.''

I didn't have the privilege of serving with Bob Michel in this chamber, but when I worked at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I found that the Republican Minority Leader worked tirelessly across party lines to serve the best interests of his district, our State, and our Nation.

The distinguished gentleman from Peoria exemplifies the best values of Middle America. Indeed, the values that define Bob Michel as a man and a leader--values like hard work, honesty, integrity and loyalty-- are the values that make the State of Illinois a great place in which to live and represent in this chamber. I am proud to share that common bond with him.

Naming the veterans clinic in Peoria is a fitting tribute to an Army hero and veteran of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II--who 10 years after his retirement from Congress remains one of my State's most respected and revered leaders.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to support this measure in recognition of Bob Michel's strength and leadership throughout 38 years of distinguished public service.

Mr. Speaker, two headlines speak volumes about the economic conditions of the middle class in America today: Sunday's New York Times headline, ``Hourly Pay is Not Keeping Pace With Price Rises''; yesterday's Wall Street Journal, ``So Far, Economic Recovery Tilts to the Highest Income Americans.'' And for the middle class we have a wage and benefit recession.

These headlines show that there is two-track economy, one for the very wealthy who are doing well, and one for the middle class who are struggling to keep pace with their middle-class dreams and providing for their children.

What we have today is a $500 billion deficit all financed because we are trying to wage three wars with three tax cuts and showing it cannot be done.

Republicans have chosen to put off addressing America's health care crisis, rising tuition costs, stagnant wages, and the ever-elusive retirement security.

As corporate profits boom in America by 16 percent, America's middle class are feeling squeezed by stagnant wages and rising health care costs. While sales of BMWs and at Neiman-Marcus are rising, same store sales at Target and Wal-Mart are stagnant.

With a record like this, only this administration would wave the banner, ``Mission Accomplished'' above the economy. It is time to put that banner back where it came from.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

It is interesting, to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, in the last 3\1/2\ years, while they have been in control, they have had 326 changes to the Tax Code, adding 10,000 pages to the Tax Code. So in his effort today at simplification, let us have a rendezvous

with the record: 10,000 new pages to the Tax Code and addendums.

That has been your record; and if you are in the business of being a tax lawyer, a tax accountant, there is a treasure chest out here in George Bush and the Republican majority's Tax Code. For middle-class families, it has become more complicated, burdensome, and unfair; and the complexity of this Tax Code directly relates to the inequities in this Tax Code. And that is what has happened to our middle-class families as we have shifted more and more of the tax burden onto work and people who work for a living rather than people who open up dividend checks for a living.

Let us see what has happened in the last couple of years to typical families. It now takes since 1994, since you have been in the majority, 7\1/2\ hours longer to fill out the tax form. Thanks for the contribution to simplification.

The child tax credits now on the code have five different breaks for families and children, each with a different definition. Now, I have three kids, and I will tell them there is only one definition for a child. We do not need five definitions for what a child is, but their Tax Code has done wonders in complicating the code.

Education tax credits, with a child in college, parents have to choose between two nonrefundable tax credits, the Hope or the Lifetime Learning, all the while in complicated forms that are long and duplicative. But guess what? If you are a corporation and you are filling out the Export-Import Bank loan, a page and a half. A kid filling out the FAFSA form trying to get a Pell grant, 108 questions. Now, what makes a corporation more important to America's future than that child? That corporation on average gets $200 million. That child gets $2,500. That child is as important to America's future, and it should be easier to get a college loan than it is to get an Export- Import loan agreement.

Increased tax preparation costs: as middle-class families struggle with the wage and benefit recession, costs for gasoline and food are going up. The last thing they need to deal with is tax preparation costs. Since 1995, 15 more million Americans have needed to hire a professional tax preparer to deal with the Tax Code and its increased complexity. The average cost is between $100 and $150. It can be a full day's pay for millions of Americans. If someone is an attorney or an accountant in the tax business, the Bush Tax Code is like Christmas every year. The abusive tax shelters used by corporations and the wealthy have increased exponentially in the last few years as the burden on middle-class families have grown increasingly.

The tax gap that is underreported by corporations and wealthy individuals is nearly $311 billion. Underreporting accounted for $249 billion. And that is the majority's refusal to work on this and crack down on this. Even their Treasury Department has asked for new enhancements in the laws.

Tax shelters have a corrosive effect, stacking the deck against ordinary taxpayers. While the special interests win shelters, loopholes, middle-class families have to play by the rules and are buried under a crushing burden by the IRS. The public's distaste for the current Tax Code is a direct result of the inequity.

And now they want towards election time this holy picture by passing this legislation. I will vote for it. It is their first step after adding 10,000 pages to the code and 326 changes to trying to do something for simplification.

I have offered my own piece of legislation to simplify family credit that condenses the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the dependent care into a single credit. It takes 200 pages down to 12 questions. It puts the Tax Code on behalf of work, on behalf of middle- class families trying to raise their children, and gives the same energy to those families that you have given to the wealthy and special interest in this country; and that is where we should put the Tax Code on behalf of the working families of our country.

Tax reform is more than a fiscal issue. It is also about our priorities. Our tax system should respect the values and the interests of the middle-class families.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge one thing. The gentleman is right. We use the Tax Code to let middle-class families afford college education and lifetime learning so they can go back to community colleges, and the gentleman has used the Tax Code to ensure that people who want to buy Hummers get a tax deduction. The gentleman has used the Tax Code to ensure that a corporate executive gets only $300 for using a plane; and, yet, his corporation writes $30,000 off for using a corporate jet. Which is it, $30,000 that the taxpayers have to pick up, or $300 that the CEO gets to deduct from their taxes?

The gentleman is right. We have had our differences in how we have used the

Tax Code, one for higher education and access to college education, and another for corporate executives who want to discount their corporate jet use. So when it comes to complexity, I am glad that the gentleman is still working on simplification; but since 1995, they have been in control, and they have had many opportunities to reduce and simplify the code; and they have made it more complicated, more difficult for middle-class families, while they have alleviated the burden for the wealthy and the special interests in this town.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader for doing this, although again it is late at night; but many times when families have to fill out the 1040, these are the hours they are working at their kitchen table trying to figure out what those stacks of paper mean, and so it behooves all of us to be here at this hour because it is very similar to what middle-class families across America have to do when it comes to the Tax Code, and it requires countless hours; and I think if I am not mistaken in the last 10 years we have added about 7\1/2\ hours to the average family's hours that they are dedicating just to filling out the tax forms around April 15.

Now, I have put together a proposal that would affect about 60 percent of the tax filers and get the form down to 12 simple questions and eliminate 200 pages of the code, about 2,000 addendum pages, and it is called the simplified family credit. It takes the earned income tax credit, which is for working people making the moderate income level, the per child tax credit, the dependent care and collapses them into a single family credit, eliminates 200 some-odd pages of code, 12 questions. Also wacks the marriage penalty and deals with the AMT, which is a regressive tax for families.

And in my sense, that puts not the onus so much but the benefits of the Tax Code behind families at work who are trying to do right for their children, and it would simplify the code but also reward those families who choose work over dependency.

You make $50,000. You have two children, this would be an additional $1,500 cut to that family versus what President Bush has put in place, and it would do it by eliminating well over 200 pages of the code.

This code has become so complicated, the complexity has led to tremendous inequity in the code.

Today we have about $311 billion, this is the lowest according to the IRS, of underreported or nonreported income, mainly by the extremely well-off corporations and individuals, who through lawyers and accountants do not report income, and they use the code to disguise income.

Well, nobody should pay more than they are supposed to pay, but the code is written now for those who can afford

lawyers and accountants to shelter and hide and disguise income. When the burdens of the rest of the funding of the government services, the burdens of paying their fair share are shifted more and more upon those who work for a living. $311 billion goes underreported or not reported or collected.

That would wipe away well over half the deficit this year. We are going to have $450 billion. $311 billion would wipe it away. You could fund close to half the Americans who are seeking college assistance, aid for middle-class families to pay for college can still pay about $100 billion or $200 billion of the deficit. What simplifying the code would do is ensure that when you paid your taxes, you knew that people down the street, you knew that people on the other side of the tracks were paying their fair share, because today nobody believes that the others are paying their fair share, and we have a system that is corrosive. It is stacking the deck against ordinary American taxpayers, and while the special interests win shelters and loopholes, middle- class families who play by the rules are now carrying the burden for those who do not report and do not pay their fair share.

Others have mentioned this, but I do think it is worth noting, in the last 3\1/2\ years, this administration has had three tax cuts, and in that time they have added 10,000 pages to the code--326 separate changes. They have added phase-ins and phase-outs and other gimmicks, sunsets to the code. All the while they have increased the burden of the Tax Code on those who work for a living and shifted the burden of those who earn money from capital investment, while if you work for a living, you are now paying more and getting less from this Tax Code. And it is high time we put the Tax Code not on the backs of the middle- class family but fighting for middle-class families, understands the obligations they have of meeting the needs of their children, and I think that the Bush Tax Code is a treasure chest full of loopholes and tax shelters for the special interests, and it has become a nightmare for middle-class families.

As I mentioned earlier, 7\1/2\ hours of additional time to fill out the tax returns. The child tax credit now has five separate breaks. I think the last time, when you compare the earned income tax credit per child and the dependent care, it is close to 10 separate definitions of children. Well, I have got three. They are all the same definition. They are sniveling and they bother you all the time. You do not need 12 definitions of what a child is. You know what it is, and the code does not understand it; and it is clearly making it more complicated.

Again, it has increased costs for filling out the form. We can do this. There is no reason for the Tax Code to be this way, but it was designed this way. That is the point that people need to understand. The code as it exists today was designed for the special interests, was designed for those who can hire lawyers and accountants to figure their way out of paying income, hiding income, sheltering income, moving jobs overseas, moving corporations overseas, holding capital in a separate subsidiary overseas.

Do you know a family in America that has set up a subsidiary of their family in Bermuda to not pay taxes? If a family could figure out how to do that, they would figure out how to pay for college. They are struggling how to pay for college, yet corporations are setting up subsidiaries in Bermuda not to pay their fair share of tax and the burden shifts on the middle-class families.

We need to take this Tax Code and ensure that the middle-class families, that it is fair to them, it is simple, you do not have to have a family dispute to fill out the tax form, and deal with that that is on that table. It is not fair. It is not right. We can do better. And so I applaud the efforts today, as Democrats put together the ideas of simplifying the code and making sure it reflects the values and the interests of our middle class.

I offer my idea of a simplified family credit that would affect 60 percent of the taxpayers and reduce the tax form down to 12 easy questions, and it would be right for them. It would be right for their children. And, again, it would ensure the most important thing, that everybody have a sense that everybody is paying their fair share. And today we do not have that sense, and we end up with $311 billion of people who are cheating the system and cheating the country of their obligation, and therefore shifting the burden to the rest of us who pay our fair share. That is wrong, and we can do better.

And, again, I applaud you for holding this and again reminding people that Democrats have an idea of massive tax reform, a big idea that would change the way we do things and it would be good for the economy, not only be fair to middle-class families. It would lead to a more productive economy, and it would make sure also the entrepreneurs and small businesses were treated correctly in our code.

Mr. Speaker, the lead story in today's Wall Street Journal, ``So Far, Economic Recovery Tilts to Highest Income Americans,'' provides further evidence of a two-track economy and an economic squeeze on middle class families.

While there has been a profits boom for corporations and a 16 percent increase in pay on Wall Street, there is a growing wage and benefits recession for the middle class of America. To those who say redistribution of wealth is wrong, I agree, whether it is to the top 1 percent or to the bottom 25 percent.

For America's workers, a new study by the Economic Policy Institute reports that weekly earnings have fallen for 6 of the last 7 months. When the recovery began in November of 2001, hourly wages were actually higher than what those same jobs pay today.

Evidence of this two-track economy is evident throughout the country. As the article points out, while corporate profits have risen around 87 percent and sales at BMW and Nieman Marcus are booming, sales at Wal- Mart and Target are flat.

But don't take my word for it, Today's Wall Street Journal quotes J.P. Morgan Chase and the former Federal Reserve economist Dean Maki: ``To date, the recovery's primary beneficiaries have been the upper income. Two of the main factors supporting spending over the past year, tax cuts and increases in stock wealth, have sharply benefited upper income households relative to others.''

David Rosenberg, chief economist at Merrill Lynch, ``The income from the recovery has been locked up in the corporate sector. We have had a redistribution of income to the corporate sector.''

So if you sit in the board room, you are doing just right. For the rest of us, it is an economic squeeze.

With working families' household incomes down nearly $1,500 over the last 2 years, people are working harder just to stay in the same place. And for the middle class, this has become a step master economy. All the while, the expense side of the ledger shows:

According to the Kaiser Foundation, that health care costs for a family of four have gone up from $6,500 to $9,000, a 49 percent increase from 2000 to 2003. And as health care costs have risen, corporations have shifted the burden to employees.

Millions of middle class families now carry, on average, the average American middle class family, $9,000 in credit card debt and $17,000 in overall household debt. The squeeze has resulted in 33 percent more bankruptcies for households.

One hundred eighty billion dollars has been evaporated from 401(k)s and retirement security for middle class families. College tuition costs have gone up 26 percent in the last 2 years.

With a record like this, only this admission could wave the banner ``mission accomplished'' above the economy.

The concentration of wealth and the two-track economy can be traced right back to President Bush's tax cuts. A study cited by The New York Times found that Americans are being taxed more than twice as heavy on earnings from work as they are on investment income, even though more than half of all investment goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers.

The shifting of the tax burden from wealth to work is the essence of class warfare. And as Warren Buffet, the legendary investor said, ``If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning.''

In the 1990s, we ended welfare as we know it because it was a failed system. Now this administration is bent on ending the middle class as we know it. This administration has two books, two sets of values, two sets of priorities, and a single economic strategy that divides this country along income.

If you want to live in a country without class divisions, we cannot deny the middle class families the same dreams of affordable health care, higher education, and a retirement that is secure. We have to give that dream to every American, not just to the wealthiest Americans.

Renowned Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``We can either have a democracy in this country

or we can have a great concentration of wealth in a few hands, but we cannot have both.''

Today's economic policies have shifted this great economy and the benefits of this great country and this economy to the wealthiest 1 percent, as today's Wall Street Journal notes. When I look at this and think about what has happened to the middle class family, with increasing health care costs, college costs, retirement that is less secure, and jobs that pay less than they did just 3 years ago, I'm reminded, especially as I look at communities across this country, with police officers and police departments and fire departments that are under stress, schools that are closing, teachers that are being laid off, and libraries that are cutting hours, I'm reminded of when George Bush declared in 2000 that he was opposed to nation-building. Who knew it was America he was talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we have to return this economy and this country back to the people who built it and to the families and respect their values. The middle class and their values and their economic interests are under assault. It is time we turned this country around and focused our policies on the middle class and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Kanjorski-Castle substitute and oppose the underlying bill.

I find it ironic, on a day in which the Wall Street Journal reports in its lead story about the disparity in the economy between the top 1 percent who are benefiting from this economy and the middle class who are hitting a dry hole as it relates to income costs, college costs, savings and retirement, here we are on the floor debating a bill in which the bulk of the benefits go to the top 1 percent.

Eighty percent of the compensation for CEOs is in the form of stock options. This is the year in which we are supposed to debate a higher education reauthorization bill. We do not do it. This is the year in which 44 million Americans are without health insurance, 33 million who work full-time. We do not debate it. So what does this Congress do? Rather than do the things it is supposed to be involved in, it is involving itself in the things that we should not be involved in. I wonder why the American people are so cynical about what we do around here.

The fact is, let me give Warren Buffett's quote about expensing stock options, with all due respect to the intelligence and the wisdom of 435 Members when it comes to the private sector. Warren Buffett says, if options are not a form of compensation, what are they? And if compensation is not an expense, what is it? And if expenses should not go into the calculation of earnings, where in the world should they go?

That was Warren Buffett's analysis. That is why he believes this is the right thing for FASB to do.

The fact is, FASB was right to say that there should be expensing of options. What they need to continue to work on is how we come up with the issue of value and how we evaluate them. The work of FASB on this issue is not done, but they are right when it comes to the issue of expensing. It is time for Congress to return to the work of focusing on the middle-class families who are facing squeezes as it relates to their income that has been stagnated, college costs that have gone up by 26 percent, health care costs that have risen by 33 percent, 44 million Americans who are without health care, rather than get sidetracked into issues that do not relate to middle-class families and the forces of this economy on their living standards.

I support and ask Members to support the Kanjorski bill and not the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Department of Labor reported that hourly earnings for workers fell 1.1 percent last month. That is the deepest drop since the depths of the recession in 1991, and it follows a 0.8 decrease in hourly wages in May.

With household income down nearly $1,500 the last 2 years, working families will have to work more hours just to lift their incomes to get back to where they were 3 years ago.

All the while, health care costs for a family of four have gone up from $6,500 to $9,000, college costs have gone up 26 percent in the last 3 years, household bankruptcies have risen by 33 percent in the last 2 years, $180 billion of net value has been erased from 401(k)s.

With a record like this, only this administration would hang the banner ``mission accomplished'' above the economy.

We can do better for the middle-class families who are facing a squeeze on college costs, health care, savings for their own personal retirement and hourly working income. It is time to turn this economy around to reflect the economic interests of middle-class families who have been faced with a squeeze on them, their family and their children as it relates to the costs.

It is time to put this administration's banner ``mission accomplished'' back where it came from.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me this time.

President Kennedy used to say, to govern is to choose, and we all would like to do a lot of things, but we do not have the resources to do everything.

As we know, the World Bank is sitting on top of $119 billion in equity, enough to make investments in the area that they need to make investments.

What we are talking about is an additional $90 million towards the President's own AIDS initiative. Now, he did a big signing, big photograph, but we have got to put the resources towards that to fight the scourge of AIDS across Africa and the Caribbean and $250 million towards the Millennium Challenge Corporation, another initiative by the President.

We cannot underfund these initiatives. They would go primarily to the countries that would also receive funding from the World Bank, but we do know by now that the World Bank has the resources. It is not shallow on resources. It has $119 billion in equity to make the types of loans that they need to make.

We know today that dealing with the health care crisis faced in Africa and Caribbean countries, that we would be alleviating one of the greatest problems for their development. That is in the area of AIDS and other health care. The Millennium Project and the President's AIDS initiative would attack those problems head on, and we cannot continue to underfund the President's initiative in those areas, which is what has happened.

By increasing the funding on the global AIDS initiative, we are showing our strong commitment to fight against AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean nations; and in another rare moment of bipartisanship, we are even working to support the President's own AIDS initiative, underfunding the administration's promise by close to $800 million this year.

Increasing funding for the Millennium Challenge Account is a good investment that gives impoverished families in the poorest countries access to health care, education and welfare. This is a policy we can all support over giving additional funds to the World Bank that has the capital that it needs now to continue to make the loans that are necessary for the World Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to recognize the contributions of the John Merlo Sports Program for its tireless efforts in providing sports programs and other activities for children and senior citizens in the Lakeview Neighborhood of Chicago, on the occasion of its 23rd Annual Awards Dinner

The annual Sports Program Dinner, hosted again at Chicago's own Wrigley Field, is an opportunity to recognize both the great work the Sports Program has accomplished in the past year, as well as the achievements of so many members of our community who help make Lakeview one of the best neighborhoods in the City of Chicago. This year, I am pleased to congratulate Senator Emil Jones, Andy McPhail, and Paula and Peter Fasseas on being recognized for their unwavering commitment to Chicago.

The John Merlo Sports Program has consistently demonstrated its commitment to providing the Lakeview community with a variety of excellent athletic programs as well as funding for the renovations of Chicago Park District Playlots. Its fundraisers, programs, and honorees, are an integral part of the success of the program, and I thank everyone in attendance for their assistance and dedication to this outstanding program.

Founded in 1981, the John Merlo Sports Program is a charitable organization named after the late John Merlo, a beloved former Alderman, State Representative, State Senator and Democratic Committeeman, who represented the Lakeview community for nearly 30 years. Mr. Merlo, a staunch advocate for the benefits of participating in sports, felt good sportsmanship, and the ability to interact with others were important skills that everyone should possess.

This year's awards are led by the Civic Leader of the Year, Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. Senator Jones has been serving the people of Illinois as a state legislator for more than 30 years. Throughout his career, he has been a dedicated supporter of education and the disadvantaged. A life long resident of Chicago, Senator Jones has provided a passionate voice for Chicagoans as the leader of the Illinois State Senate.

President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Cubs, Andy MacPhail has a long connection with the Lakeview Neighborhood, first working for the Cubs in 1977. As one of the most successful executives in Major League Baseball, Mr. McPhail has also worked for the Houston Astros and the Minnesota Twins, a team that won two World Championships while he was at the helm. Under Mr. McPhail's management, the Cubs were the National League Central Division Champions last year, and are again fighting for the pennant. Accordingly, I applaud the selection of Mr. McPhail as Business Leader of the year.

Last, but not least, I congratulate Paula and Peter Fasseas on being selected as the Business Leaders of the Year. Metropolitan Bank Group Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Peter Fasseas and Vice Chairman Paula Fasseas have been involved in all facets of the Lakeview community since purchasing North Community Bank in 1978. The number of civic organizations that have been touched by the Fasseas is too numerous to mention, but I am particularly proud of their work with Pets Are Worth Saving (PAWS), the non-profit organization founded by Mr. and Mrs. Fasseas in 1998 dedicated to encouraging pet adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the leadership of The John Merlo Sports Program, its founder Bernie Hansen, and current President Mike Quigley on the incredible work they are doing for Chicago's youth and seniors. I would also like to commend the tremendous leaders being honored this year, and wish the program continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today's New York Times reports that almost 4 million senior citizens will lose their employer drug coverage and prescription drug coverage when the new Medicare law goes into effect in 2006. In most cases, this will result in beneficiaries getting worse drug coverage than they had before this bill was passed. My Republican colleagues sure have a funny way of implementing reform over there.

In addition to not only 4 million more seniors getting worse coverage than originally planned, this bill will cost the taxpayers $150 billion more than Republicans originally said. If we had taken the steps to deal with prices originally in the Medicare bill, more employers would be able to afford the drug coverage they originally planned and senior citizens and taxpayers would save money.

Yesterday, the House affirmed for the third time this session a bipartisan support for prescription drug reimportation. We have employers dropping their drug coverage because they can no longer afford rising drug prices. We have a Medicare card that now gives seniors higher prices and a lot more confusion than buying drugs from Canada and Europe, and we have a Medicare bill not designed for seniors in mind.

Instead of a philosophy of the customer is always right, this bill says that special interests are always right.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time.

I rise to express my disappointment that an otherwise strong Free Trade Agreement has been tainted by provisions designed to protect a captive market for the prescription drug industry in this country, forcing American senior citizens and taxpayers to pay higher prices than normal.

Australia has the lowest pharmaceutical prices anywhere in the world, of developed countries, that is, anywhere. I have supported NAFTA. I have supported GATT. I voted in favor of Singapore. I voted in favor of Chile. I believe in free trade. But what we attempted here was a back- door attempt to continue to force Americans to pay the highest drug prices anywhere in the world. And we had an opportunity to literally do something different with a good free trade agreement.

It all makes sense. Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, PhRMA were all on the advisory board to the USTR when it came to negotiating this trade deal, and we are setting a precedent, forcing Americans again to continue to pay the highest pharmaceutical prices than anywhere in the world when we could have provided Americans the chance of a free trade agreement where we reopen markets, bring in competition, lower the prices around the world. But we did not do that. So we took an ally and tried to actually, in the negotiations, force them to walk away from their health care. One does not force a friend and ally to walk away from a good health care program who is paying lower prices for prescription drugs than anywhere in the world.

I will not support this agreement on behalf of the senior citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will vote for a third time this session in overwhelming bipartisan manner to allow Americans to import drugs from Canada and Europe where prices for those

prescription drugs are 30 to 70 percent cheaper than they are on the American shelves at our pharmacies and grocery stores.

Members of this body on both sides of the aisle last year voted against the pharmaceutical industry's intense lobbying where they spent well over $200-some-odd million, they hired well over 600 lobbyists to try to prevent the American consumers and senior citizens from accessing drugs and prescription drugs and medications that their doctors prescribed at prices that they can afford.

People from all over the world come to the United States for their medical care. Yet, Americans are forced to go all over the world for their medications. That is wrong. We can do better.

Prices here in the United States are artificially kept high because of a closed market. What this would allow, the legislation allowing reimportation, would allow Americans to have an open market, a free market when it comes to the pricing of prescription drugs.

Every other product, cars, autos, software, food, we have free access, and Americans pay some of the lowest prices in the world. There is only one product line Americans have a closed market to and we are forced to pay the highest prices in the world and that is in the area of prescription drugs.

In Canada, in Europe, the same medications that we find on our shelves here are, as I said, 30 to 70 percent cheaper. Americans know that. 2 million seniors a year go over the Canadian-U.S. border to get their prescription drugs with their prescriptions that their doctors have asked them to take. Rather than cut pills in half, rather than skip a month, rather than skip a day, rather than allow only their spouse to get medications and preventing themselves from getting medications, those seniors go over to Canada, save hundreds upon hundreds of dollars a month in their prescription drugs.

What this legislation would do is allow the free market to work, creating competition, bringing prices down, and ensuring the American consumer, American seniors and, most importantly, now that we have a prescription drug bill to Medicare, the American taxpayer that they would get their fair price and world price for world-class drugs.

What is ironic here is that the American taxpayer pays for the research for these new life saving medications both through the direct funding of the National Institute of Health and through the R&D tax credit. The American taxpayer is subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry's research and development in new life-saving drugs. And yet what do we get for all that taxpayer support for the industry? We get to pay the highest prices in the world. That is the unique position of the American senior citizen and taxpayer.

The reimportation of prescription drugs would allow our seniors, our families who need medications for their children and for their parents, would allow them those medications at the prices that consumers in Europe and Canada are paying which is 30 to 70 percent cheaper.

It is the right thing to do not only because we pay for the R&D, but it is the right thing to do if you believe in the free market. We should allow the free market to work, creating that competition, bringing prices down. As I said, literally 2 million seniors a year do it every year. They have been doing it for years going to Canada, finding somewhere close to a little over a $1 billion worth of savings.

We are voting on it for the third time here in the House. Hopefully in the other body they will now begin to take up this legislation and start to create that bipartisan focus on bringing the prices of prescription drugs down.

I set up in my office a Web site, just so my colleagues know, we took Costco which is a discount retailer, we have a Costco in Chicago. We listed the 10 most used drugs by senior citizens and the price at that Costco in Chicago of those 10 medications. Then we took the Costco in Toronto, same store, same medications, same discounts. In Canada one would save, versus the United States, for those same medications close to $1,000 if one bought at the Costco in Canada versus the Costco in Chicago. That is a discount retailer. And people know that. And we must afford our seniors the ability to get the medications they need at the prices they can afford.

Everybody lately has been touting this Health and Human Services discount card, the Medicare discount card. In fact, in Canada one would save more than one would on that discount card. In our 70 percent of that discount card, the fact is that the reimportation would allow one cheaper savings than it does on that discount card. If the discount card was designed for senior citizens, it would not be as complicated. It was not designed for senior citizens, it was designed for the pharmaceutical industries that invested close to $200 million in that legislation.

offered By: Mr. Emanuel

Amendment No. 3. At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

designation of republic of poland as a program country under the visa

waiver program

Offered By: Mr. Emanuel

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Prohibition of profiteering