Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Sheridan and Mildred Ostrander of Chicago on their recent Golden Anniversary celebrating 50 years of marriage.

Both Sheridan and Millie have been active members of the community and continue to support the many causes important to them.

Sheridan, now retired, has owned several businesses and worked for CNA Insurance for a number of years.

Millie has been a devoted wife, mother, and homemaker and remains active in Our Lutheran Church and Luther North High School Women's Organizations.

Together Sheridan and Millie have lived in their present home for 48 years. They have two children, Janice Fleck and James Ostrander.

The Fleck's, Janice and Michael, are the proud parents of two children, Sarah, who attends Oakton Community College; and Jessica, who attends high school in Niles, Illinois. James and Christine Ostrander have two children, Megan and Kevin, who both attend grammar school in Schaumburg, Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the Fifth District in congratulating Sheridan and Mildred Ostrander on their fiftieth wedding anniversary, and wish them and their extended family all the happiness in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of two important bills enacted by the House earlier today that will provide much-needed and deserved assistance to the families of U.S. troops, and provide special recognition for the distinguished service of our military personnel in the global war against terrorism. This legislation would reimburse U.S. service personnel for their transportation costs and create two new campaign medals designating military service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The first bill, S. 2057, builds on the much-needed and highly successful Operation Hero Miles, which allows Americans to donate their unused frequent flier mileage, by also reimbursing troops for travel expenses to their final destinations. Under the U.S. Armed Forces Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave Program, those troops who traveled before Dec. 19, 2003 are not eligible to be reimbursed for commercial airfare beyond U.S points of entry--Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas-Fort Worth, or Los Angeles. Also, there is still a need for travel assistance for soldiers on emergency leave, and for family members of soldiers being treated at U.S. military hospitals. This bill would allow troops to seek reimbursement retroactive to Sept. 25, 2003 which will help many of their families save hundreds of dollars each.

I am also proud to cosponsor and vote for a second bill passed by the House today, H.R. 3104, which would create separate campaign medals specifically designed to recognize service by members of the Armed Forces who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. These decorations will be worn proudly by our troops and provide important symbolic recognition by distinguishing their service in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and emphasizing their specific and unique significance in our mission to win the global war against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the troops for their continuing valor, patriotism and commitment to our Nation. We thank them for their heroism and sacrifices, and we support these bills to honor their service and to provide much-needed relief for their families. Now that a year has passed since U.S. troops were deployed to Iraq, we wish them all a safe return and hope this legislation makes their trip home a little easier.

Mr. Speaker, later this week the House is on the verge of passing a $2.3 trillion budget with a $500 billion deficit, showing that it is impossible to finance three wars with three tax cuts.

This budget repeats the same mistakes that have resulted in a jobless economy and a wage recession here in America, with the lowest growth in wages in a period of economic growth ever in American history.

This budget continues the status quo economy, an administration that refuses to budge and change its failed policies that have led to nearly 3 million Americans unemployed since it has taken office, 43 million Americans who are working without health care, 4 additional million since they have taken office, 2 million Americans who moved from the middle class to poverty, nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate individual bankruptcies and stagnant wages.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush declared that he opposed nation-building. Who knew it was America he was talking about. You would think if your results of your economic policies led to 3 or more million Americans without work, 43 million

Americans without health insurance, $1 trillion dollars worth of foreclosed corporate assets, poverty rolls increasing, you would change direction. What are we about to do with this budget? Put our foot on the accelerator and do the same old thing that will result in the same policies.

In 3 years we have added $3 trillion to the Nation's deficit, and nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. Three wars, three tax cuts, $500 billion in deficits. That has been the result of the economic policies of this administration; and this budget that we are going to vote on will continue the policies that have given America woefully inadequate services on health care, college education, jobs, retirement security, and also economic security.

This budget and the President's economic vision is really the tale of two budgets, one for America, one for Iraq. We have spent well over $100 billion on Iraq's occupation but without promising the same future that we are promising the Iraqi children and families.

Let us just go through it.

When we talk about universal health care in Iraq and free job training to Iraqis, 44 million Americans go without health insurance and 8.2 million Americans are without jobs.

In the area of health care, 2,200 Iraqi health officials are being trained by the United States, and 8,000 volunteers in Iraq are receiving free training. In America, under the budget being proposed, we have cut health training funds by 64 percent here at home.

One hundred fifty clinics and hospitals in Iraq have been rebuilt, serving 3 million Iraqis. One hundred percent prenatal and infant coverage in Iraq. In America, community health clinics cut by 91 percent. Maternal and Child Health Care, Healthy Start, family planning, all frozen resulting from cuts in those budgets.

In the area of jobs, in Iraq $60 million is being spent to train Iraqi veterans for past wars; and yet in this budget we gut veterans and veteran health care, resulting in every veterans organization opposing the budget we are going to vote on.

In the area of education in Iraq, we have built 2,300 schools for the Iraqi children but have underfunded Leave No Child Behind by $8 billion here at home. Iraqi universities are getting $20 million for higher ed partnerships. In America, we have cut $91 million from the Perkins loans and frozen Pell Grants for college education.

In the area of police and security, $470 billion is being spent, $500 billion is being spent for Iraqi police. Yet the COPS, Community Police Program, $659 million in this budget is cut from the police that we put on our streets here at home.

In the area of housing, $470 million is being spent for Iraq public housing. Yet we have cut in this budget that the President proposes and the Republicans are going to vote on $791 million from section 8 public housing vouchers.

In the area of environment, in Iraq, $3.6 billion in waters and sewer improvement; in America, a $500 million cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that provides drinking water for every American.

In the area of ports, the Port of Umm Qasar in Iraq was completely rebuilt for economic development. The Army Corps of Engineers here in the United States, a 63 percent cut for port security upgrades.

Roads. We spent $240 million on roads and bridges for the Iraqi infrastructure, and yet mass transit here in the United States in the budget will be frozen.

As the President seeks reelection he will be running on a pledge that he kept. He was opposed to nation-building, and he has kept his pledge. The problem is he is opposed to nation-building here at home in America. We can do in it in Iraq, but we should not leave America behind.

Mr. Speaker, when we were off a couple of months ago debating the Medicare bill, we were told it was going to cost $400 billion. We found out all along everybody knew it would cost $550 billion, and nobody was told the absolute truth. Most importantly, you were not told. Not a single new benefit has gone to a senior citizen and the taxpayers are stuck with another $150 billion hit. Now everybody wants to talk about the benefit that is going to come with a discount card giving a 25 percent discount. The costs of prescription drugs at the pharmacy are rising on average 19 percent a year for the last 7 years. So what you are going to see is what we all know happens at Neiman Marcus right before a sale, prices get jacked up as high as they can and then they offer a sale to give you a discount from the inflated prices. That is what is happening to prescription drugs right now at the pharmacy.

Seniors on average pay 40 to 50 percent more for their prescription drugs than people in Canada and Europe for the same drugs that have been developed here in the United States. What we need is a reimportation bill to bring the prices down, make them competitive, and get world-class drugs at world market prices rather than the 50 percent inflated prices that we pay here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct the conferees offered by my colleague on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

We are on the verge of passing a $2.4 trillion budget with a $550 billion hole in it. Mr. Speaker, a $2.4 trillion budget with a $550 billion hole, showing that it is impossible to finance three wars with three tax cuts and get any other result. It has never been done in history. We are trying to do it now. What do we get for three wars and three tax cuts? A $550 billion deficit.

This budget by the Republicans perpetuates the President's economic policies of the status quo, failed policies that have led to a jobless economy and a wage recession. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since he has been President; 43 million Americans are without health care, of which 33 million Americans work full-time and have no health care; 2 million Americans who, prior to this administration were in the middle class, are now in poverty; and nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate and individual assets have been foreclosed on in the last 3 years. What do they recommend doing? The same thing: put your foot on the accelerator and see if we can rush forward. And those are the results of the Bush economic policies.

What this PAYGO rule would be, just to be straight about it and not get into the, as some would say, cockamamie, arcane rules of the Congress, what this would do would force this Congress to pay for its policies. That is what this PAYGO rule would do, as cockamamie as it may sound; and it would change the economic direction of this Congress and this administration so we do not have the results of unemployment, lack of health insurance, lack of affordability on college education. That is what this would do.

It is a commonsense approach. It adopts what businesses do, families do, State governments do, and that is pay for the way you go. If you want to pay for more education, you have to do it.

Let me remind everybody, in the 1990s when we created 22 million jobs, poverty was cut in half, health care costs were contained, and we insured more Americans. This was part of that economic strategy that led to the greatest period of economic growth ever in American history. That was a piece, a central piece of the economic strategy. So it is about economic philosophy and strategy, but the results are in: one failed economic policies that have left more people without jobs, without health care, without the ability to afford college education; and one that had the greatest period of economic growth, greatest period of employment, and greatest period of poverty rates in the history of this country.

So that is what this debate is. I urge my colleagues to support the motion of the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the House is on the verge of passing a $2.3 trillion budget with a $521 billion deficit, showing that it is impossible to finance three wars with three tax cuts and come up with a different result outside of a $521 billion hole in the budget.

This budget repeats the same mistakes that have resulted in a jobless economy and a wage recession in America. It continues the status quo of the administration's economic policies that have resulted in nearly 3 million Americans losing their jobs, 43 million Americans without health care, of which 33 million Americans work but have no health care, and 2 million Americans who used to be part of the middle-class and now are in the level of poverty, and wages are frozen, and $1 trillion worth of corporate assets and individual net worth have been called into bankruptcies.

What do you do when have you this type of economic results? You think you would change your economic policies. No. This budget puts your foot on the accelerator, expecting a different result but repeating the same economic mismanagement.

During the 2000 election, President Bush said he was opposed to nation-building. Who knew it was America he was talking about? This budget and the President's economic vision is really a tale of two budgets: one for America, and one for Iraq.

We have spent well over $100 billion of the taxpayers' money on Iraq's occupation. But here in America, we have gotten shortchanged. What do I mean by that?

In Iraq, we are offering universal health care and free job training. In America, 44 million Americans are without health care; and nearly 8.2 million Americans are without jobs.

In the area of health care, 2,200 Iraqis are receiving and health professionals are receiving training, 8,000 volunteers are receiving medical training; and in America, under the President's budget, the health training funds cut by 64 percent.

One hundred and fifty health clinics and hospitals have been rebuilt to serve 3 million Iraqis, providing 100 percent prenatal and infant coverage. In America, under the President's budget, community health care clinics have been cut by 91 percent. Maternal and child health care, Healthy Start, family planning, all frozen.

Veterans, $60 million is spent to retrain Iraqi veterans; and our veterans budget has been gutted by $257 million. Veterans health care has been cut to where every veterans organization has opposed the President's budget and the budget passed here by the Republicans.

In the area of education, we have rebuilt 2,300 schools in Iraq. We have underfunded No Child Left Behind by $8 billion.

Iraqi universities are getting $20 million for higher ed partnerships. In America, we have cut Perkins loans; and Pell Grants have been frozen for the last 3 years.

Police. $500 million is spent on the Iraqi police training, but the community police program in the United States has been cut by $659 million.

In the area of housing, $470 million is spent on Iraqi housing, yet $791 million is cut from section 8 housing vouchers.

In the area of environment, we are paying for $3.6 billion in water and sewer treatment facilities in Iraq. Here in America, in the President's budget, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which deals with all our clean water and drinking water for Americans, has been cut by $500 million.

Ports infrastructure. The Port of Umm Qasar was completely rebuilt, and yet the Army Corps of Engineers cannot afford U.S. port security upgrades since their budget has been cut by 63 percent.

As President Bush seeks reelection, he can say he kept his commitment against nation-building. The problem is the target was America.

This is a tale of two budgets, one for America and one for Iraq; two priorities, one for America and one for Iraq; two sets of values, one for America, one for Iraq; and two sets of books, one for Iraq, one for America.

I have no problem investing in Iraq's future, but that future cannot be a more promising future than the one we promise here for our own children. Compared to how Americans view their futures, we cannot deny Americans the same dreams of affordable health care, education, police on the street, a safe place to live and job training.

America will no longer be the most generous nation in the world if the future they promise their children is one that is less promising than one we are talking about overseas.

Now if your economic results here at home were nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, nearly $3 trillion has been added to the Nation's deficit in 3 years of budget, you would think you would change your economic policies. No. So what we will do is put our foot on the accelerator and press forward try and expect a different result, having tried 3 years in a row and producing the same result. We need a change and a new direction of the budget values and America's future.

Mr. Speaker, this week the House is on the verge of passing a $2.3 trillion budget with a $521 billion deficit, showing that it is impossible to finance three wars with three tax cuts and expect a different result.

This budget repeats the same mistakes that have resulted in a jobless economy and a wage recession in America, the lowest wage growth in any period of time in a period of economic ``growth.'' The Republican budget continues the status quo policies that have resulted in 2\1/2\ million Americans who have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans without health care, 4 more million Americans since the President took office, 2 more million Americans in poverty who walked out of the middle class into poverty, wages frozen, and $1 trillion in corporate and individual bankruptcies. Three years, $3 trillion dollars added to the Nation's debt, and 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. What a record.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush said he opposed nation-building. Who knew it was America he was talking about?

This budget, the President's economic policy, is really a tale of two budgets: one for America and one for Iraq. We have spent more than $100 billion on Iraq's occupation without promising the same future here at home.

In Iraq they get universal health care and free job training, while in America 44 million Americans go without health care, 10 million children without health care, and 8.2 million Americans without jobs.

In the area of health care, 2,200 Iraqi health professionals and 8,000 volunteers are receiving free training. In America under this budget that the Republicans and the President put together, health training funds are cut by 64 percent.

One hundred and fifty clinics and hospitals have been rebuilt, serving 3 million Iraqis, providing 100 percent prenatal and infant coverage. In America, community health care clinics are cutting funding by 91 percent; Maternal and Child Health Care, Healthy Start, and family planning, all frozen.

In the area of jobs, $60 million is being spent to retrain the Iraqi veterans. Yet we have cut the manufacturing job training program by 67 percent over 3 years.

In the area of education, we built 2,300 schools in Iraq and underfunded Leave No Child Behind in America by $8 billion.

Iraqi universities are getting $21 million for higher ed partnerships. In America, the Perkins loans are cut by $99 million and Pell grants are frozen.

The police in Iraq, $500 million for training. In America, the COPS program is cut by $659 million.

In the area of housing, $470 million is spent on Iraqi public housing, while in America $791 billion is cut from Section 8 housing vouchers.

In the area of environment, we are paying for $3.6 billion in water and sewers in Iraq; and in this budget, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which deals with drinking water here in America, is cut by $500 million.

The port of Umm Qasar was completely rebuilt in Iraq. The Army Corps of Engineers cannot afford U.S. port security upgrades since their budget has been cut by 63 percent.

Roads, we have spent $240 million on roads and bridges in Iraq, but mass transit, including highway funding, remains stalled under this administration.

As President Bush seeks reelection and we think about his pledge in 2000 to oppose nation-building, he has the dubious honor of saying he kept his pledge because he is opposed to nation-building here in America.

I am not opposed to what we are planning for Iraq. That is a good thing. But I oppose the notion that we will literally reconstruct Iraq while we deconstruct the United States.

In this budget this administration, this Congress, is telling the American people that they have two priorities, two sets of values, and two sets of books, one for Iraq and one for America. Compared to how Americans view their futures, we cannot deny Americans the same dreams of affordable housing, affordable health care, affordable education that we have promised Iraq and their children. America can no longer afford to be so generous if hope for a prosperous tomorrow and a better tomorrow is diminished here at home for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the same values we hold for Iraq we must pledge for all Americans. So we cannot allow our economy

and our prospects, which this budget will lay out an economic vision, that still results in 2\1/2\ million Americans in the last 3 years who have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans without health care, nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate and individual assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 more million Americans have walked out of the middle class into poverty. If we are going to do nation-building, we must do it here at home, not just overseas.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, why do you not do the charts because I think it is always the most informative for our audience.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota.

As that chart shows, basically the difference between the United States price for the same drugs, same name-brand products from Germany to Canada to England is in the United States our seniors and our citizens have to pay somewhere between 40 to 60 percent more for the same drugs they would get at their pharmacy than their G-8 or other members of the European Union; and you and I have done this many times, and the fact is we are not talking about some field somewhere in some mythological moment of some dream. There is parallel trading today in Europe.

If you go to a pharmacy in Germany, they will price out that product you need, whether it is Lipitor, for whatever you need Lipitor for, the cholesterol, whether you need another drug for blood pressure, for arthritis, or for your heart. Any of those medications they will look at Spain, look at England, they will find the best price for you, and all we are talking about is having the American consumers, our senior citizens, link into that free market, get the competition on price. So rather than paying 50 to 60 percent more than what people in England pay for Lipitor, we would pay the price that they pay in England or in Canada or in Italy or in the Netherlands or in Germany or in France.

It is ironic because all those folks from those countries come to the United States for our medical care. Yet Americans must go overseas for their medications, and what we are talking about is having a system where you bring real competition to the pricing of pharmaceutical products and allow that competition and that market to bring the prices down and allow that choice to exist, not so people would have to drive up to Canada, not so people would have to go on the Internet to get their pharmaceutical products; but that the prices that the people are now paying in Canada and in Germany and France for Tamoxifen, for Cipro, I am trying to look at the drugs, my eyes are not as good as they used to be, Zokor, those prices would come to their local pharmacy. They would go right down the street and get those prices, go to the pharmacist who would say, well, I think I can get something better in Toronto for you, or, we have the same price right here.

That competition would bring the prices down here; and that is all we are talking about, and every product, whether that is in steel, autos, electronic, software, food, America has the most open markets and the best prices in the world. There is only one product line where we have a closed market, and that is the pharmaceutical products; and it is the only product that Americans pay 30, 40, 50, depending on the product, sometimes 60 percent more than our European allies and Canada.

I would like to give you two other statistics. According to Families USA, of the 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors, the prices have increased 3\1/2\ times the rate of inflation over the past year; and between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent. So drug prices are going up.

We have now got a prescription drug bill that offers seniors no benefit as relates to price and affordability of those drugs, and now they are going to continue to go up; and unless we bring something that brings competition and choices to the system, the seniors are going to continue to pay somewhere north of 15 percent increases in prices, and our taxpayers are going to be funding not $400 billion, but close to $600 billion in a prescription drug benefit when we know we can get the prices of these drugs much cheaper.

I see you have the next chart. That is why I wanted to bring these statistics.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you pointed that out. In each of those years pharmaceutical products ran higher in the sense of inflation by the average of 5 to 6 percent more than the core inflation rate.

Thank you. Five to six times more than the core inflation rate, and it is what drives seniors. I have done town halls, but also I still do office hours at grocery stores and pharmacies where I just meet constituents; and seniors always tell you, I cannot afford the drugs I need. There is an issue of price.

The second issue they said, do not harm the plan I have. I have a good plan from where I work; please do not harm it.

Lastly, and in this order basically, they would then say can we not get a benefit under Medicare, and in the bill that was just passed here and the reason I opposed it is on the fundamental issue of price and affordability.

The legislation on prescription drugs was totally silent on dealing with price. And what we have proposed here, your legislation, deals with the issue of price and affordability and allowing pharmaceutical products and allowing Americans to get the products they need at world- class prices, that is, at 50 percent discount, 40 percent discount, and what people in Germany, France, England, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, or Ireland is paying. That is what we are trying to do, is address the issue of price and affordability that all of our seniors have talked about.

Then it brings up the other issue. If we are going to have this benefit as part of Medicare, whether our taxpayers today or our children tomorrow pay for it, to me it is mind-boggling why, when you know that you could get prices cheaper for the same brand-name drug, Lipitor or Zocor, why you would get those drugs and pay 40 percent more when you know you can get them 40 percent cheaper. Any CEO who told their board, look, we have checked it out, our supplier, we can get a better price, 40 percent better, but we are going to take a pass on it, that CEO would be fired.

We as the stewards of the taxpayers as well as our senior citizens have an obligation if we know we can get that same drug, that same product for 40 percent less, we have an obligation to do that.

Eventually, we are going to turn our time to the issue of safety, but Health and Human Services is spending $80 million on a commercial to convince people the prescription drug bill they passed was a good bill. For about $80 million we could literally put in place, the Food and Drug Administration, a safety plan so that when people bought their drugs in Canada, Europe, et cetera, they could know for sure that they were safe.

Today, not a single drug, in the last 10 years, has anybody ever gotten sick from buying drugs from Canada. We know that for a fact. But for the same amount of money that they are using to try to persuade people that what we did was good, we could put a safety program in place and allow the free market to operate the way it is supposed to operate.

Right. First of all, 2 years ago is the last year for which we have data, and the data shows that the United States imports $15 billion, just shy of $15 billion a year of pharmaceutical products into the country. $15 billion. We already do it.

Lipitor used to be manufactured in western Michigan. Today, Lipitor, a drug that some of our colleagues use, we know the Vice President of the United States uses, we know the Secretary of Health and Human Services uses, is now manufactured in Ireland.

Every tablet is manufactured in a facility not in the United States. It used to be here, but it is manufactured in Ireland. Then it is exported, same packaging, to the pharmacy shops in France, Germany, England, Ireland, United States, Canada, and around the world. Yet that drug, Lipitor, we pay 50 percent more in the United States than they do in Canada for Lipitor. It is the number one selling drug for senior citizens with high cholesterol.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I brought up the $80 million being dedicated towards advertising the prescription drug legislation and that for that same amount of money we could put in place a system at the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that people could buy their drugs safely is because President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose;'' and that is the choice we have made.

With that system in place, we would have, as the gentleman said, rather than having specifically a benefit that some do not think accomplishes that much, we would bring the discounted prices, the 40 percent retail discount price, right to our pharmacies in the United States and to our consumers,

saving billions of dollars throughout the health care system that could be dedicated towards the uninsured, towards whatever we wanted to dedicate it to. It would literally wring out an inefficiency in the health care system by allowing the, irony of ironies, the free market to work.

Secondly, we know from the Wall Street Journal, I think about 3 months ago, that the pharmaceutical industry thought that the best way to defeat this legislation was to scare people by talking about people getting sick, the safety risk of the pharmaceutical drugs imported from Canada. Yet in sworn congressional testimony, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged not one person they could find has ever gotten sick from buying drugs from Canada and Europe, and yet 2 million Americans do it every year. People have gotten sick from food that has been imported from around the world, but not one person who bought their drugs from Canada has ever gotten sick, according to the Food and Drug Administration, and close to 2 million Americans do it a year.

So that is number one.

Number two, in my State, my governor conducted a study looking at the likelihood if they were to import medications from Canada how much they could save Illinois. We spend close to $350 million a year for retirees and State employees. The State would save its taxpayers $91 million if they bought their drugs competitively. In addition to that, and the New York Times acknowledged this about the study, the study in Illinois found that Canada actually had a safer system than the United States because less people touch the drug from manufacturing to the shelf in the pharmacy.

So this whole notion of fear was literally an embellished story by the pharmaceutical industry as a way to defeat this legislation. And what I am proud of is that not only the American people have not bought it, but 243 Members of our colleagues here in this hall did not buy it, passed this legislation this year not once but twice, and, hopefully, the other body, the other Chamber will follow suit. This whole notion of safety was a red herring by the industry to intimidate people.

I will make one last comment about safety. Six years ago, when the generic industry was just being started, the name-brand pharmaceutical industry said the problem with generics was safety. What did we discover? We discovered that a lot of those generic pills were being manufactured at the same facilities that the brand-named drugs were being manufactured at. Then they walked away from the safety argument, and generics have grown as an industry, saving tens of billions of dollars for our consumers.

They left that argument on the shelf, but when it came to competitive pricing for pharmaceutical products, which allow the market to work, which the gentleman's legislation does, they brought up the safety issue. And, once again, we have shown in sworn testimony where the FDA says not a single person has ever been recorded getting sick, and the American consumers have not bought that argument that the industry has tried to scare them with. They know they can do. They do it every year.

My colleague and I run into seniors every year, I run into them at some of the public housing and some of the other senior housing in my district, where somebody on the haul will get everybody's prescription and will go up to Canada, fill everybody's prescription, and come back. They know it is normal. They do not think anything is wrong with this. They just cannot understand why we cannot do it here.

So on that issue I wanted to address those specific points on safety, and I yield back to my colleague.

The gentleman and I have talked about this. What galls me a little about this whole subject is that not only are we paying the most expensive prices in the world but all the research that the pharmaceutical industry does is subsidized by the taxpayers. They write it off fully, 100 percent. The taxpayers are literally funding the research. Not only do we fund the research for this new medication, we have the dubious honor to pay the most expensive prices in the world. Second, is through the National Institute of Health, which is an annual budget here in the Federal Government of $27 billion, not all of it going to research for new medications, yet all the primary research that they do, I think it is about half of it, literally is subsidized by the taxpayers. One cannot think of a cancer drug or an AIDS drug, just to name two, that the taxpayers did not do the primary research. The pharmaceutical industry took that research, took it to market, took it through stages one and two, but the primary research was paid for by the taxpayers directly through the National Institutes of Health and then the follow-on research was subsidized through the tax credit research and development.

All the R&D that the companies do is tax free, the taxpayers subsidize it; and then we pay the highest prices at our pharmacies for those same drugs that a lot of these companies sell on the shelf in Canada, in England, in France, in Germany for 40 percent to 60 percent less.

So we paid for the research and then we pay the highest prices in the world. The gentleman noted that. That to me is what is most galling here. I do not fault really the pharmaceutical industry. I fault us here in the political system who have a job to represent our taxpayers, our middle-class families, our seniors, for allowing them to get away with a system that manipulates the patent laws, deals with tax subsidies through the NIH or through the tax credit R&D, and then passes legislation that literally gets away without dealing with the fundamental issue that all of us have constantly heard about at our town halls, at our grocery stores and at our pharmacies and, that is, we cannot afford the medication we need. It is not that they needed a benefit, not that a benefit was a bad thing to do, but they wanted the medications they needed at the prices they can afford.

I give the pharmaceutical industry credit for two things: one, they played the system perfectly, and I do not fault them; second is that they do good work. I was once in the hospital for 7\1/2\ weeks. I would not be here if it were not for some of the products that they had developed. I have no problem with that. But the prices I paid at the hospitals were a lot cheaper than what we pay at the pharmacies.

All we are asking for is that same competition to get those prices. We are prevented from doing it. This legislation that was recently passed specifically outlaws it; and I do believe, as I do in free markets, that if you allow that competition and you allow the consumer that freedom, you are going to get choice. Once that choice gets into the market, prices will come down here. Let me say, they will go up in Europe. But you will have an equilibrium, and you will not have a 50 percent disparity where we end up subsidizing those folks in Europe. When I say ``we,'' hardworking middle-class families, taxpayers and the senior citizens.

I say pay for the research, I want us to own that research, but we need not have to pay the highest prices in the world. That is the mistake. The prices on the shelf at the pharmacies, that is the error here. We can do something about it. We have done it here in the House. Hopefully, our colleagues in the other body will also follow suit.

Before I leave, I wanted to add one other point. I think the gentleman explained this, and I had not even known this, but on Tuesday night, the pharmacies across America get the new prices coming in over their fax machines. Going to that other chart, this year we are expecting pharmaceutical products will go up 18 percent. Inflation will be at 2 percent. So if you go to your pharmacy, to all the people who may be watching, and you go to fill your prescription, then you wonder why the same prescription that 3 months ago if you get a 3-month supply or a month ago cost 21 bucks or 50 bucks and this month, the same drug, nothing changed, nothing, but it is up $12, it is all because of that chart.

You can go ask your pharmacist if you have time on your hands on Wednesday how much they priced up all the products. Unfortunately, what the pharmaceutical companies have done, we just talked about it, they game the tax laws. Again, no criticism, but they have gamed the patent laws in this country, they are gaming the legislation on prescription drugs, and what they decided to do was price up the pharmaceutical products right before this discount card is introduced. So what it is going to look like is a sale at Neiman Marcus around America, which is rather than paying and getting, quote-unquote, this 25 percent discount, which I am not really sure will ever materialize, what you are really going to see is a run-up in prices right before this summer, and you are seeing it today at your pharmacy. So if your prices are going up, you know what is going on, and when this big balloon, big announcement is going to happen, you are going to see a big sale at Neiman Marcus right here in America. You are not going to get a sale price. They are just plussing it up before the big discount card. Our American senior citizens are going to be running around in a cul-de-sac chasing themselves, and there is going to be no discount, the taxpayers are going to be saddled with a big bill, they are going to pay $35 a month for this card, and they are going to see no discount.

Yet we literally have in front of us the opportunity, and the gentleman noted a figure, I think it is an accurate figure, at a minimum, to save $60 billion this year if we had competition in the free market. That could go toward other things in our system, a college education, buying things for kids' education, other type of health care needs; but it just could be so much more productive than what we are doing with it. I think it is so important that we pass this legislation so that the legislation we do pass finally deals with the central issue our constituents tell us about, price and affordability, and so we do not have to hear the story about a mortgage consultant doing reverse mortgages for our senior citizens so they can literally take the equity out of their homes so they can buy their medications that they need.

This is the greatest country in the world. We are all fortunate to live here. We can do better than what we have just seen in front of us. I thank the gentleman for taking this time to organize this.

Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 election, President Bush declared that he was against nation-building. When we look at the Republican budget, who knew it was America he was talking about. They have three wars financed with three tax cuts, resulting in a $550 billion deficit.

This budget by the Republicans continues the same policies that have led to 2.5 million Americans losing their jobs, 43 Americans who work without health insurance, 2 million Americans who used to be in the middle class who now are in poverty, and only a 1.6 percent growth in wages, leading to wage recession in this country.

Now, what we need, and what we have seen today with this budget and the budget in Iraq is the ``tale of two budgets.'' In their budget, Pell grants are frozen for college education. There is a cut, and we do not fully fund the Leave No Child Behind; yet, in Iraq, 2,300 new schools have been opened. In health care, $90 million has been cut for the underinsured, yet we have opened up 150 hospitals in Iraq, spending $800 million in Iraq.

In the United States, $659 million cut from the police. Yet we are rebuilding the police in Iraq to the tune of $500 million. Veterans, we just heard a debate about the priorities in veterans, yet did you know in Iraq we are spending $150 million to help train the Iraqi veterans from their past wars?

That is the tale of two budgets. One priority for Iraq, another priority for the United States.

The Spratt budget lays the right priorities for the United States to begin the job growth, to begin the burden-sharing by all Americans so the future for America's children are as bright and as strong as the one their budget envisions for Iraq.

It is time to not continue the policies as a result of the economic failures here at home that have resulted in a $550 billion deficit, $3 trillion dollars of national debt, 2.5 million Americans unemployed, 43 million Americans without health insurance, 2 million more Americans in poverty, and a wage recession that has led to the lowest economic growth in wages in a period of economic growth.

It is high time we turn around and put this country in the future by dedicating resources to college education, to health care and the environment and reducing the deficit and cutting taxes for the middle class.

Mr. Chairman, having worked on the 1993 budget that cut taxes for working families and reduced the deficit by $500 billion and having worked on the 1997 budget that balanced the budget and cut taxes for middle-class families so you could both reduce the deficit and cut taxes, I not only know the music, I know how to dance to that music.

1993 and 1997.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Both the 1993 and the 1997 budget, of all people, I do not think we need to go through this; but if we have to, we will. The 1993 budget reduced the deficit and cut taxes. And it cut taxes on working families who needed it most and put our priorities and our fiscal house in order.

The 1997 balanced budget built on the shoulders of the 1993 budget, balanced the budget and cut taxes. It was the first time the $500 per- child tax cut was introduced. It was targeted tax cuts to working families.

This budget that you have guarantees and locks in deficits as far as the eye can see, and every budget that has been introduced by the Republicans and President Bush has guaranteed us the largest deficit and national debt ever in the history of this country. And that is the difference. Not every tax cut is good and not every tax cut is bad, but the tax cuts you have chosen have laden the economy with the largest debt and the largest deficit in the history of the economy. That is what Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

Mr. Chairman, not only did we cut the taxes in 1993 and 1997 in our budget this time, it resulted

in 22 million jobs, a reduction in poverty, a reduction in those who were without health insurance. And today under your economic stewardship, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans are without health care, 2 more million Americans are in fact in poverty that used to be in the middle class, and a trillion dollars worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on.

These are the economic results of your economic plan. It does not set priorities. It assumes all tax cuts are equal. And if you think a tax cut allowing a corporate jet to fly around when children of working families do not get a tax cut, those are the wrong priorities that resulted in the economic losses that you have on your record. The 90s were the best economic period of time; $550 billion of deficit cannot be erased in a 1-minute speech.

Mr. Speaker, telling the truth and facing the consequences in the Bush White House has become truth and consequences.

General Shinseki, retired Army Chief of Staff, said occupying Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops, and was forced to resign.

Marine Commander General Zinni said there were greater priorities than Iraq; Zinni was not reappointed as Middle East adviser.

Larry Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, said the war in Iraq would cost $200 billion; he was fired.

John DiIulio, former director of Faith-Based Initiatives, said there was no policy apparatus in the White House and was forced to quit.

Our chief Medicare actuary knew the real cost of the Medicare bill and was told there would be extreme consequences for insubordination.

Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, criticized the tax cuts as stated in ``The Price of Loyalty'' and what they would do to the fiscal order in the United States; he was fired.

Joe Wilson challenged the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa; his wife, an undercover CIA agent, was outed.

And now Dick Clarke joins a list of officials whose character was assassinated for telling the truth, truth and consequences in the Bush administration.

Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 campaign, President Bush declared that he opposed nation-building. Who knew it was America he was talking about? When we look at this higher education agenda, the President can run for reelection saying he kept his promise against nation-building.

Everybody understands the importance of higher education, opening doors of economic opportunity in a time of changing economic conditions. Pell Grants, the single largest educational opportunity we provide at the Federal level, is frozen. In fact, as tuition has been going up by 14 percent a year for the last 3 years, we have kept constant the Pell Grant and have not allowed it to increase with the cost of college education.

Today, at the University of Illinois, the average graduate from the University of Illinois graduates on graduation day, gets a diploma plus $18,000 in debt. They get their first Visa bill when they graduate from college. We have frozen higher education assistance to middle-class families.

During the campaign, President Bush promised to increase the Pell Grant to $5,100. Despite an average tuition increase of 14 percent, the Pell Grant today sits at $4,050. To me, that is a fascinating way to invest in America's future. We make available all these types of assistance to corporations. That child is as important to America's future as a corporation, yet we have frozen and closed the doors of economic opportunity.

And all while we were freezing our assistance to college education, in Iraq we have opened up 2,300 schools and distributed 1.5 million secondary and 800,000 primary school kits to the children of Iraq.

We need to have a budget that reflects our values here at home with the same type of commitment we have held for the people of Iraq and for their children. Here in America we are limiting the educational options available to students and limiting the ability of Americans to compete in the world marketplace.

I am glad to see the President kept his commitment, that is, to be opposed to nation-building. Unfortunately, he has chosen America as his model. This budget returns us and, in fact, you could label this budget as a back-to-the-future budget. What has it resulted in in the last 3 years? Two-and-a-half million Americans have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans are without health care, 2 million American children went from the middle class to poverty, and the most important fact is, we have had a wage recession in America, a 3 percent decline in wage income in America under this administration.

This budget consistently follows the path of the last 3 years, the last three budgets of the President, and takes us back to the future to an economic time

in which we have seen the job decline and the health care decline in this country. Unfortunately, in the area of higher education, they have frozen and kept the doors closed to middle-class families at a time when it is essential for them to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, Richard Clark is a career civil servant and registered Republican who served in four administrations: President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton and now our present President Bush. Most recently, he served for this President as a counterterrorism czar for President George W. Bush.

Apparently, he committed an unforgivable sin on ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night. In his new book, ``Against All Enemies,'' Mr. Clark lays out a detailed, factual, substantive critique of the President Bush's failure to adequately address the threat of terrorism and specifically al Qaeda before September 11.

I worked in the Clinton White House. I worked with Dick Clark. We did not always agree on everything; but we never doubted his patriotism, and working for four Presidents, one Democrat and three Republicans, he was committed to this country and to his mission in serving it.

Let me give my colleagues a quote from that show: ``I think the way he,'' that is, the President, ``responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely.''

``He [President Bush] ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know.''

What has been the consequence? He has been castigated since the newscast aired Sunday night. The White House has attacked him professionally and personally, going to the point of questioning the loyalty and integrity of a man who clearly was not in the business for politics.

But Dick Clark joins a long list of ex-administration officials who have one thing in common: they told the truth. They told the truth in the face of great political pressure and personal risk, knowing they would be attacked for what they said, and this is a long list of people that exited the administration.

This administration prides themselves on having all these MBAs. The first thing you do when you have an MBA is assess the people around you. They have either got the greatest amount of names that have ever been assembled or the greatest amount of truth tellers, but they cannot handle the truth there.

I do not understand how they have hired Richard Foster, current chief Medicare actuary, who wanted to tell the truth about the cost of the prescription drug. Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of Treasury, former chairman of ALCOA, he told the truth about what was happening to America's fiscal house. Joe Wilson, former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria. Eric Shinseki, retired Army chief of staff. John DiIullio, former White House director of the faith-based initiatives. Anthony Zinni, retired Marine general and President Bush's envoy to the Mideast. Larry Lindsey, the President's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and now Dick Clark. These people told the truth despite the pressure to otherwise tell the American people the facts. For these acts of simple honesty, they deserve to be called patriots rather than be cast aside and have their patriotism and their professionalism questioned.

Let us review the facts: Richard Foster, current chief Medicare actuary. The truth: the chief Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, revealed the real cost of the Medicare bill was $550 billion, not $400 billion. Consequences: he was warned that the consequences for insubordination are extremely severe if he told the Congress and the American people the truth.

Bruce Buckheit, EPA director for air quality. Truth: Mr. Buckheit said the new mercury standards were written to benefit the administration's corporate friends and polluters. Consequences: five current EPA officials corroborated Buckheit's story, but according to the Los Angeles Times chose to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Mr. Buckheit resigned in December. EPA Administrator Leavitt is now reexamining the mercury rule and may propose a more stringent one, but he had to leave.

Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury. Truth: Secretary O'Neill described in his book, ``The Price of Loyalty,'' that President Bush is distracted, incurious and makes decision on the economy and national security based on poor information or for political motives. He called President Bush ``a blind man in a room full of deaf people.'' He criticized his tax cuts and his plan to invade Iraq since week one. He criticized the tax cuts because he said they would leave America fiscally unsound. We have $3 trillion additional debt because of these tax cuts. Consequence: it took the White House less than 24 minutes after Mr. O'Neill's ``60 Minutes'' interview to launch an investigation into his use of ``classified'' documents and then they fired him. He was actually fired before that.

I will submit the rest of my text into the Record herewith.

Joseph C. Wilson--former U.S. Ambassador to Niger.

Truth: In a July 6, 2003, New York Times Op-Ed, Ambassador Wilson challenged the President's claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore from Africa. The White House later admitted he was correct and the President's claim shouldn't have appeared in the State of the Union address.

Consequence: According to government sources, Administration officials leaked the name of Ambassador Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA agent, to a journalist. A White House senior official admitted about the leak, ``Clearly, it was meant purely and imply for revenge.''

General Shinseki--retired Army Chief of Staff.

Truth: Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told Congress that occupying Iraq would require ``several hundred thousand troops.''

Consequence: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz criticized his estimate as ``wildly off the mark.'' Shinseki later resigned.

John DiIulio--former White House Director of Faith Based Initiatives.

Truth: ``There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus,'' DiIulio told Esquire in January 2003. ``What you've got is everything--and I mean everything--being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.''

Consequence: Under intense pressure from the White House, DiIulio apologized for his

statement and was forced to say he didn't mean it.

General Zinni--Retired Marine General and President Bush's envoy to the Middle East.

Truth: Zinni, a retired Marine Corps General who was Bush's middle east envoy, told a foreign policy forum before the Iraq war that the Administration had far more pressing policy priorities than Iraq and said there could be a prolonged, difficult occupation after the war.

Consequence: Zinni was not reappointed.

Larry Lindsey--the President's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Truth: Larry Lindsey told a newspaper that the Iraq war would cost $200 billion.

Consequence: The President fired him.

As President Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things. Richard Clarke and the many others we should recognize as Patriots have pulled back the curtain and revealed facts that are not only stubborn, but also inconvenient and damaging to Mr. Bush, the self-described ``War President.'' They told the truth and are now facing the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to take the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Hulshof) time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. In the 2000 Presidential election, President Bush declared that he was against nation building. Who knew it was America he was talking about? President Kennedy used to say, to govern is to choose, and how we make our choices in this budget is a reflection of our values and the choices we want to make for the American people. It is not just a set of numbers; it is a set of priorities, a set of values, a set of principles.

I put together an analysis of what the President has done here in America with his budget and what he is doing in Iraq with the American taxpayers' money. Take job training, for instance. In the United States, although we have cut $316 million in vocational education, in Iraq, $60 million for demobilizing and job training for 130,000 enemy combatants. Funding is $353 million for American enterprise fund and job training. $151 million has been cut in adult training here in the United States. Those are values; those are priorities.

Take the area of college education. Here in the United States we have cut $101 million in the President's budget for Perkins loans; $327 million has been cut in Pell grants for college education. In Iraq, $20 million for higher education and development projects creating U.S.- Iraqi university partnerships.

Expanding literacy, we have cut reading programs here in the United States; $40 million for building 275 schools and training 10,000 teachers in Iraq. That is just one example of the set of priorities and values that the President's budget reflects here at home.

My view is, I am for investing in Iraq's future, giving the children of Iraq a future, but not one that is less promising and less strong and less valuable than the one we have here for the people in the United States. We should not invest in Iraq for things we are not willing to invest for here in the United States.

Take the issue of health care. Americans are facing a huge health care crisis. Costs are growing by 20 percent a year for the last 3 years and are expected to grow like that going forward. What have we done since the President got elected? We used to have 38 million uninsured in America, today we have 43 million uninsured, and not a single proposal to deal with it.

In the President's budget, we cut $278 million for health professional training. In Iraq, we fund free training for 2,200 health professionals and 8,000 volunteers.

There has been a $94 million cut to community access programs to coordinate health care services to underinsured. In Iraq, $793 million has been spent for health care construction and medical equipment. $78 million in the United States is cut for health activities to provide health care for rural America; $28 million is provided for operation and staffing of 150 health clinics for 3 million Iraqis.

Down here, funding has been cut for all child care programs here in the United States; $44 million is provided for community development projects in Iraq for child care facilities. Those are our values; those are our priorities. Why is Congress willing to fund Iraq's health care professionals, why are we investing American money for 2,200 new health care professionals, yet here in the President's budget we cut health professional training not just by $78 million. That is a 64 percent cut in that budget.

What is it about the Iraqi health care system that we can see an investment that will reap the benefits of a stronger, healthier Iraqi population; but here at home, we say to rural America and community health care, we say to control cost, we are going to cut and slash. Those are our values; those are our priorities. These budgets are not numbers. They reflect what we care about and what we envision. We cannot have a vision for Iraq that is stronger and better than the one that we envision for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, that is just in the area of health care. In the Corps of Engineers, in Iraq we have opened up a new port for commerce. In the United States, the Corps of Engineers, we have a 10 percent cut in their budget, in the President's budget. We are investing $4 billion to open up a new port in Iraq, and we are cutting the Corps of Engineers here in the United States that helps economic growth and the movement of goods and services.

That budget for Iraq reflects our values, and that budget for America reflects our values. These are not our values at work. We can have differences among our parties; but ultimately the budget has to reflect what we think and how we see America growing, how we see our children getting educated, how we see our workers getting trained, and how we see the health care for our communities.

We cannot invest in Iraq in a way that envisions they have a brighter future than the one we are envisioning for our own families. As we hear from my colleagues this evening about the budget choices we make, there are other areas we are going to be talking about on education, job training, health care, commerce, the environment.

We have a policy for the marshes to be restored in Iraq, yet we are cutting the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. We have a $4 billion water program going on in Iraq, yet for our drinking water facility we have cut $300 million here at home. Those are not our values; those are not our priorities.

So when the President declared in 2000 when he was running for the Presidency that he was against nation building, he was right; but who knew it was the United States he was talking about. But think of the upside: in 2004 when President Bush seeks reelection, he can at least say he kept his commitment, that he was against nation building because the end result of his economic policies, the end result of his budgets, 9 million uninsured Americas, 2.7 million Americans who had jobs since he became President lost their jobs, 43 million Americans have no health care, 33 million Americans work full time without health care, 2 million additional children who used to be part of the middle class are now in poverty, and a trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on.

As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. Those are the facts, and those are the results of the President's economic priorities. This is his fourth budget since being President. He has made an investment in Iraq that he has not measured up and made here in the United States. We must have the priorities that we hold for Iraq to be true for the United States. That is what this debate and this discussion about the budget is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for allowing me this opportunity to lay out some of the choices that I went through on the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the consequences for insubordination are extremely severe. That was the warning that the Medicare actuary Richard Foster received from his superiors for trying to tell the truth about the real costs of the Medicare bill. The penalties for misleading the American people are extremely severe as well.

Today, we learned that some in the Republican leadership knew all along the real cost of the prescription drug

bill and yet continued to hide that information from their colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let me again quote from the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial yesterday: ``What's a mere $140 billion among friends?''

This is a case not only of politics trumpeting policy but of politics trumpeting principle. Some think that there are consequences for insubordination, but all of us know that the consequences of deception are extremely severe as well.