Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 165 years ago, conservatives in the House of Representatives passed a rule to prohibit and ban the discussion of the debate of slavery in the House of Representatives. Then Congressman, former President, John Quincy Adams, strongly objecting to that policy passed by the conservatives that ran this House of Representatives, came to the floor night after night, week after week, disputing that rule and reading letters from his constituents, mostly women in Massachusetts, who could not vote, sharing letters from his constituents with the House of Representatives and with the American people protesting that prohibition on that debate.

Today, the Congress is considering other very important legislation, other legislation and investigations, something the House of Representatives conservative leadership does not want to allow, and that is debate on how this $87 billion will be spent and accounted for, whether or not the Bush administration told the truth when leading this Congress and country into war with Iraq and how we are going to take care of the troops.

I am again tonight, as I have night after night since late July, reading letters from my constituents, because conservative Republican leadership in this House will not allow us to debate these issues and will not do the investigation that the country and so many of my constituents are demanding. I am reading letters from them tonight about the troops, about the lack of accountability on the $87 billion and the $1 billion a week we are already spending.

Jane from Akron, Ohio, writes, ``Do not put good money after bad. I implore you to look at the U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and see that they are treated decently in terms of danger pay, education for their dependents and family support issues. The Bush administration is certainly not supporting the troops with decency and respect.''

She is talking about some of the same things my friend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) just talked about.

Evelyn from Akron, Ohio, writes, ``This administration has bankrupted the country. Please vote against the $87 billion unless the people responsible are held accountable.''

She talks about, as many other letters have, the fact that we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. One-third of that money has gone to private contractors, many of them unbid contracts. The largest contract has gone to the Halliburton company, which Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of until he was running for Vice President, and she and others talk about the fact that Mr. Cheney is still receiving $13,000 every month from Halliburton, as Halliburton is receiving hundreds of millions in unbid contracts, hundreds of millions of our tax dollars.

Wes of Strongsville, Ohio, writes, ``It is beyond belief that this administration has gone so long, nearly 5 months

since the `end of major combat,' without a plan on accomplishing its initial goals in Iraq and keeping our soldiers from another quagmire.''

Wesley of Bath, Ohio, writes, ``I am very sad that George Bush and his staff, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, apparently misled us when taking us to war. We need to publicly investigate how the public was misled about the reasons for going into this war. If the President and his people are culpable, they should be let go.''

Betty from Akron, Ohio, writes, ``We need to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and give authority for rebuilding to the United Nations. No more money from Congress until there is a change.''

She and others have suggested that President Bush bring in more United Nations troops, more United Nations financial support, something the President has been unable to do, in large part because many around the world, as in this country, have not really believed that the President has told us the truth, and so many of our countrymen, so many of my constituents, have objected to this $1 billion a week with no accountability, especially when $13,000 every month is still going to the Vice President of the United States from a company that is getting millions of dollars in unbid contracts from the President of the United States.

Shirley from Akron, Ohio, writes, ``We can no longer afford to go it alone in our nation-building in Iraq and still care for America's pressing social issues, most specifically, our children's education, health care and high unemployment from the loss of American jobs. The hubris of this administration's policies at home and abroad will cost America for decades to come. It must stop now.''

She is talking about the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens. The average millionaire gets a $93,000 tax cut, while the President has cut veterans' benefits, and he is not taking care of our troops in Iraq and the supplies they need. The President has cut education and health care benefits also.

Claire from Strongsville, Ohio, writes, ``The level of debt increases daily as we keep reducing services for needy children. It can only get worse as we throw more money into the unjust Iraq war.''

You can see, letter writer after letter writer, citizen after citizen in this country, have major concerns about the corruption, the unaccountability, the money the Vice President is still receiving and our whole war policy.

Mr. Speaker, 165 years ago, conservatives in this House of Representatives passed a rule banning the discussion and debate of slavery in the United States House of Representatives. In those days, former President, then Congressman, John Quincy Adams, trooped to the House floor night after night, week after week, protesting that the issues of slavery were not being debated, and he then shared letters from his constituents, many of them women who could not vote, so that Members of Congress and the American people would learn more about why he believed slavery should be abolished.

In like manner today, Mr. Speaker, conservative leadership in this House of Representatives has not really allowed full debate on whether or not the Bush administration told us the truth on his reasons for taking us into Iraq; whether leaders in the Bush administration, all the way up and down, were actually leveling with the American people; whether and how the $87 billion the President has asked for should be spent, whether we should spend it. Questions and concerns about that $87 billion that the American people have raised are not being debated, and especially the concern that my constituents are expressing about the safety of our troops.

And so similar to John Quincy Adams, Mr. Speaker, I have brought letters tonight from my constituents, as I have night after night since July, expressing the concerns of people in my district about whether or not the Bush administration told the truth, about the Halliburton connections with Vice President Cheney, the company that is getting literally hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts, even though Vice President Cheney is receiving from that company still, sitting this close to the oval office, $13,000 a month from Halliburton, and just concerns that people in my district have about all of this.

Melissa, from Akron, writes: ``We truly need to change our course of action in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld's arrogant, bombastic, my-way-or-the- highway way of thinking, speaking, and acting have put this country and our soldiers, especially our soldiers, in a precarious position, some ways worse than Vietnam. Our own country is falling apart: The energy grid, highway infrastructure, schools, health care, child care, industry, personal freedom, the environment, as well as employment. The money wasted on this fool's errand could have been used to rebuild this country, to find Osama bin Laden, to really deal with terrorism, not by providing Halliburton,'' the Vice President's company, that as I said is paying him $13,000 a month still, ``not by providing Halliburton with a steady income.''

Jessica of Akron Ohio writes: ``The $87 billion President Bush has asked for could be spent in so many other ways that would benefit Americans directly. Manufacturing, education, and health care are just a few areas that have been put on the back burner since the administration has taken office.''

What Jessica is referring to, surely, is the fact we have lost 3\1/2\ million jobs since President Bush took office, 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs. In Ohio, literally one out of every seven manufacturing jobs has vanished without any real response from the President.

Howard from Akron writes: ``The Bush administration bungling in Iraq must be challenged. Before any more money is approved for this misadventure, Congress must insist on seeing a comprehensive plan, with time lines for restoring basic services, establishing home rule, and removing U.S. troops.''

Howard's letter suggests what so many of these letters do; that people are concerned about the safety of the troops first, they want answers about where the $87 billion is going, how much of it is going to private contractors, like Halliburton and other unbid contracts, that happen to be to people who happen to be very good friends and often contributors of the President, and just when there is going to be a timetable to wrap this up in Iraq.

Liane and George from Avon write, ``Please don't give the President the added funds he requested. We need a guarantee that our troops are coming home and all rebuilding responsibility is transferred to the United Nations.''

Evelyn of Akron writes, ``Please vote against giving the President $87 billion without his relinquishing part of the power to the U.N. and any countries that are willing to send troops and money to Iraq.''

We have already spent $69 billion in Iraq, more than a billion dollars a

week, an $87 billion request has come forward from the President, and we are not getting much help at all obviously from other nations in terms of troops or money, as Evelyn points out.

Stephanie from Strongsville, Ohio writes, ``Millions of Americans are out of work and thousands more are laid off every day. State and county taxes are increasing to cover the cost of Mr. Bush's huge refund for the wealthy. And now Mr. Bush wants billions more to fund the disaster that he, Cheney and Rumsfeld created in Iraq?''

Mr. Speaker, Stephanie is referring to the budget cuts and the tax increases that Ohio has done. I think people in my district and around the country are very concerned about the $87 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and appreciate the good work the gentleman has done on health care in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bishop motion. The health savings security account provisions of H.R. 1 are misguided, they are misplaced; and, frankly, they are misnamed, misnamed because health savings accounts do not promote health security, they actually undercut health security. HSAs coupled with high-deductible insurance are a magnet for healthier and better-off individuals, ones who can use the tax break and are not put off by the $1,000 deductible.

When the healthiest individuals leave existing insurance pools to buy high-deductible coverage, premium costs go up for everyone else. It is simple logic. Logic tells us that. So do studies by RAND, by the Urban Institute, and the American Academy of Actuaries. High-deductible health insurance discourages utilization of cost-saving preventive and routine care. It simply does not make sense to promote this type of coverage.

Do we really want to spend $174 billion to inflate the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance and encourage the purchase of outdated, counterintuitive high-deductible health insurance?

The HSA provisions are misguided because the Census Bureau just reported now, since President Bush has taken office, almost 3 million more uninsured people in this country, partly connected to the fact that we have lost 3\1/2\ million jobs in the United States

since 2001. But most uninsured individuals will not benefit from the tax preferences built in the HSAs, so this proposal not only will not, but it simply cannot, make a dent in the large pool of uninsured. They are not a serious solution. We should not waste money on them.

These provisions are misplaced because this is a prescription drug coverage bill, not a health insurance coverage bill. If our goal is indeed to expand access to health insurance, then the conferees should be debating the best way to expand access to health insurance, and they are not doing that.

So do we want to get one thing right, or do we want to get two things wrong? Let us get the prescription drug coverage in this bill right, as the Bishop motion does. The drug coverage contained in this bill is woefully inadequate. Seniors with $5,000 in drug expenses under the Republican plan would pay $4,000 out of pocket. Five thousand dollars worth of drug expenses, and the government will only pay $1,000; hardly insurance. The bill's coverage gap forces beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their costs after the first $2,000 of drugs have been purchased. The coverage does not begin again until drug spending reaches $4,000. That is not really insurance. It makes you wonder if Republicans really think it is a good idea to penalize people for being sick. This huge hole in the coverage, if you are spending between 2 and $4,000, you get no coverage on your drug costs. This motion, the Bishop motion, takes $174 billion allocated for health savings accounts and devotes it to beefing up the prescription drug coverage. The additional funding helps eliminate the hole in that coverage. The Bishop motion makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I respect my colleague. I think that he is intellectually consistent and honest, something that we do not see on this floor nearly enough, and I appreciate his thoughts. I do not agree with him, but I think that he is bringing this to the table with the right attitude.

I do hear him say, however, in talking about the gentleman that he spoke about in Arizona that he met, the older gentleman whose wife and he were spending $600 a month on prescriptions and saying he did not want to saddle his grandchildren with debt, I mean this Congress has been all about saddling our grandchildren with debt, with tax cuts, with spending in Iraq, $1 billion a week with no accountability to private contractors, much of that money going to contributors to the President, much of that money going to Halliburton, a corporation which still pays Vice President Cheney $13,000 a month, and those costs or those expenses are being paid by our grandchildren because that $87 billion this Congress will vote on in the next 2 or 3 weeks is going to be borrowed money.

That being said, I rise in opposition to the Flake motion. If there are Members of Congress who want to rewrite Medicare to make it a welfare program, which the Flake motion does, then let us have that debate. But just as it is wrong to co-opt seniors' need for drug coverage, to turn Medicare into a privatized insurance voucher program, it is wrong to capitalize on the coverage gap to turn Medicare into a means test and welfare program.

Medicare has enjoyed widespread popularity in this country, not only because it provides an essential safety net for America's most vulnerable seniors, although that is certainly a critical mission, it is also popular because it treats every American senior fairly. It is an insurance program that we should not fracture, one that has universal coverage, one that works for everyone, one that virtually everyone in society supports, and one that has worked as well as any Government program in our history over the last 38 years.

Understand that while by most major health indices: life expectancy, rate of vaccination, child mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, most measurements of health care, indices in this country, the U.S. does not rank very high compared to other wealthy countries, but on one measurement we rank near the top, and that is life expectancy at 65. If one reaches the age of 65 in the United States, chances are they will live longer than people, on the average, in almost any other country in the world. That is because Medicare treats everyone fairly, whether it is the retired factory custodian of modest means or whether it is the more affluent retiree who actually owns the factory. The Flake motion makes a radical change to this decades' old and very successful universal health care program that we call Medicare. The Flake motion asks the conferees to ensure the final bill includes a means-testing requirement. For the first time since its creation, Medicare would then look at the custodian, the poorest senior, the middle-class senior, the wealthy senior, and the plant owner all differently. All of them have paid into Medicare. The plant owner, frankly, has paid in more over his working lifetime than the custodian has, but under the Flake motion, Medicare offers the wealthy owner less coverage than his former employee. The Flake motion would turn Medicare from a national retirement savings program into a welfare program, undermining the popular support, undermining the universal support that Medicare has enjoyed in this country for 38 years.

A vote for this motion is a vote to weaken the pillar of fairness that supported Medicare for these 3-plus decades. The gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) motion also backs a means-testing plan that would almost certainly cut benefits for middle-class seniors. The House means-testing language would begin benefit cuts at income levels of $60,000. Sixty thousand dollars is hardly a Ken Lay lifestyle, especially in these days of ever-increasing health care costs.

I hear from my constituents week after week after week concerned that the cost of their health care insurance continues to grow with no end in sight. I hear it from seniors. I hear it from young, working families. I hear it from people who are close to retirement. It would seem to them that regardless of their income, regardless of how well they have planned for their health care future, that health care costs are eating up their savings. A Medicare prescription drug benefit that leaves any hard-working American out in the cold should be unacceptable to Members of this Congress. At least my Democratic colleagues and I think it is.

Let me be clear. A vote for the motion from my friend from Arizona is a vote to cut Medicare benefits, ultimately of middle-income Americans. Sixty thousand dollars now; that number could continue to be brought down in the next motion and the next motion and the next motion until public fee-for-service Medicare is only a program for the poorest and the lowest-working income people in this country.

A vote for the Flake motion is also a vote to increase bureaucracy and reduce privacy protections for American seniors. Here is how that works: House language would require Medicare to send a list of beneficiaries to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS would respond with income information for every senior in Medicare. Medicare would then send that personally identifiable financial information to private health insurers that provide coverage under Medicare. I sure hope we get the do-not-call legislation enacted constitutionally, get it passed a court test if that happens. Surely, our Medicare cost-containment strategy should amount to more than adding paperwork in Medicare, increasing the bureaucracy at IRS and sending seniors' private tax information to HMOs.

The gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) concern, however, about the growing cost of Medicare is justified. The conference negotiations over H.R. 1 offer us an opportunity, an important opportunity, to address that concern by including clear, specific direction for the Government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies reasonable prices for the medicines American seniors so desperately need.

We all know that growing health insurance costs are being driven by the skyrocketing costs of ever-increasing prescription drug costs. That is the 800-pound gorilla in the health care cost room. The House bill simply ignores it.

If we are really concerned about cost, we should instruct the H.R. 1 conferees to give Medicare real authority to protect seniors and taxpayers from rising drug costs. We are the only country in the world that lets the drug companies charge whatever they want. That is why we pay two times, three times, four times as much as the Canadians and the French and the Germans and the Israelis and the Japanese and the Brits pay. We should not instruct the conferees to cut the benefits of middle-income Americans and erode popular support for Medicare. We should, in this legislation, instruct the conferees to go after the high cost of prescription drugs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the motion from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is a leader in this institution and in the area of health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both my friends from Indiana and from Arizona for their comments. I am just intrigued that people can stand on this floor in the majority party and talk about burdening our children and our grandchildren with debt.

When President Bush took office, we had a surplus, billions of dollars a year, a 10-year surplus well into the several trillion dollars projected. Today, after Republican control of the White House for only 2\1/2\ years, Republican control of the House during that time, Republican control of the Senate much of that time, we are talking about trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. This year alone some $550 billion deficit. And for then my colleagues, not just today but time after time after time, coming to this floor and railing against Democrats for spending, it makes me absolutely incredulous.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are now talking about bringing

forward to this House Chamber a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In other words, we cannot balance the budget, but we are going to do a constitutional amendment to make us balance the budget.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that when they argue costs and debt and burden on our children, they ought to look at the tax cut that they have given to millionaires, $93,000 for the average millionaire in this country, half of my constituents got zero dollars out of that tax cut, but they have given a $93,000 tax cut to the average millionaire.

They have way overspent the budget when it comes to issues such as what they are now doing with Iraq. We spend a billion dollars a week. They want to spend $87 billion next year, probably more than that, that is just what they are telling us now, with little accountability. We do not know where the money is going. The private contractors are getting unbid contracts, they are friends of the President, yet they talk about saddling our grandchildren with debt as if it is Medicare that is saddling our grandchildren with debt.

My friend from Arizona, as I said, I respect him for his candor and his intellectual consistency and honesty, but what this is all about is about privatizing Medicare. They wanted to privatize Social Security. They wanted to privatize the national parks. They want to privatize Medicare. They want to privatize every section of the government that they possibly can.

That is their philosophy. That is fine. But let us not talk about means testing. Let us talk about what their mission is, to turn Medicare over to the insurance companies. That is what Medicare+Choice is about. That is what their argument is about. They can call it means testing. They can call it a lot of things, but ultimately, we know what it is. We know they want to privatize Medicare.

As my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has said, for 35 years it is clear that my friends on the other side of the aisle, for honest intellectual, philosophical reasons have not liked Medicare. In 1965, only 12 Republicans voted for Medicare. Strom Thurmond voted no. Gerald Ford voted no. Bob Dole voted no. And my favorite, Donald Rumsfeld, voted no at the creation of Medicare in 1965.

In 1993, when the Democrats saved Medicare, when its life expectancy was not really very long, Democrats passed, with no Republican votes, legislation to extend the life of Medicare.

In the mid 1990s Speaker Gingrich came forward saying that he wanted Medicare to wither on the vine. He tried to cut Medicare $270 billion to give another tax cut to the wealthiest people in society.

Then Dick Armey, the majority leader of the Republicans, Bill Thomas, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, they have consistently said how they do not like Medicare. This is about privatizing Medicare. It is not about Bill Gates. It is simply not about means testing. It is about privatizing Medicare, turning it over to the insurance companies and ending Medicare the way that we know it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Flake motion.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, about 160 years ago, Congressman and former President John Quincy Adams came to the House floor night after night, week after week to read letters from constituents, most of them women who did not have the right to vote in those days. He was protesting the decision by the conservative leadership of the House of Representatives, a decision which banned the discussion and debate of slavery on the House floor in those days. Because they had banned the discussion of slavery, Congressman John Quincy Adams thought he should share letters from his constituents with Members of the House, with the American people.

Similarly, because Congress has not debated so many of the issues surrounding Iraq, the question of weapons of mass destruction, the question of some of the things that the administration said that they might have misled the people of the United States, discussions about how the $87 billion is going to be spent that the President has asked for, discussions of the hundreds of millions of dollars every week that we are now spending in Iraq, where there is no accountability for the private, unbid contracts, many of which are going to the President's friends, several of those contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars going to a company called Halliburton, unbid contracts, hundreds of millions of dollars every month. Halliburton is a company that is paying the Vice President of the United States $13,000 every month, a company where he was CEO.

Madam Speaker, I am going to read some of these letters, as John Quincy Adams did 160 years ago, allowing people in my district to speak about these issues that conservative House leadership will not let us talk about.

Madam Speaker, from Greg from Brunswick, Ohio said, ``The U.S. occupation of Iraq now costs $1 billion a week, as much as the Federal Government spends on after school programs for the entire year. Those are just military costs, not including any money for rebuilding Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction have been found.'' Greg writes, ``Nor have we seen any evidence of an active weapons development program, and there is no exit strategy. The administration has yet to present a realistic plan for how the occupation of Iraq will end.''

Lucy of Copley, Ohio, writes, ``There is more than one issue that must be addressed. I am very concerned that much of the money will be turned over to President Bush's business cronies for lucrative private contracts.'' She is talking about Halliburton and literally the hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts they have gotten, $13,000 every month that goes to the Vice President of the United States from that company.

``I have no absolutely no doubt that this will happen unless Congress puts some constraints on the administration. Please give a great deal of thought into all of the issues before handing Mr. Bush everything he wants, including that blank check.''

Kenneth of Richfield, Ohio, writes, ``I believe the President and his senior administration officials have misled the American people to pursue an agenda which they do not discuss in the election campaign and which is dangerous to world peace.''

Jerlene of North Royalton, Ohio, writes, ``President Bush seems to have had no real plan for what the United States would do in Iraq once we took over that country. Giving him $87 billion is not going to get a feasible plan on the table any faster.'' She talks about how we are paying a billion dollars a week now in Iraq, much of that going to unbid contracts, much of that money unaccounted for, yet, already having spent $70 billion the President is asking for $87 billion more. She cautions us to exercise caution about that money that the President is asking this Congress for.

She also mentions that this money is going to be borrowed from our children and grandchildren because it means more national debt to the United States.

Matthew of Akron, Ohio, writes, ``Too much of taxpayers' money has been squandered on this war already. It is time to hold George Bush accountable. By granting him this request, the American people, through Congress, are doing him a huge favor, and I might add, doing the American people something much less than a big favor.''

All of these letters say, we want to have questions answered. We want the safety of our troops assured. We want to make sure that our troops are supplied better than they have been as these private contractors have squandered billions of taxpayer dollars. We want accountability. We want a plan of reconstruction the American people and the Congress can understand. And we not only want that accountability, we want an exit strategy on how, in fact, when this is going to end, and how this is going to be done.

Madam Speaker, I will continue, as I have since July, to share letters from constituents on issues this Congress will not debate on answering these questions that the American people have of their elected officials.

Mr. Speaker, the economy in my part of the country continues to drift; yet Congress and the President continue to fiddle. Three and a half million jobs lost since President Bush took office. Two and a half million manufacturing jobs have vanished, one out of ten manufacturing jobs in this country. It simply disappeared; most moved overseas in the last 2\1/2\ years. Plant closing after plant closing. Now, the President asks us for $87 billion with no accountability, $87 billion to Iraq.

Yet the President at home is cutting education, is cutting spending on health care, will not provide a prescription drug benefit, and even is cutting veterans benefits. Why? For the simple reason that he wants this war on the cheap and the simple reason that he wants to continue to give tax cuts to the most privileged people in this society.

Forty-two percent of the tax cuts have gone to the richest 1 percent of people in this country. That means a millionaire gets a $93,000 tax cut. Half of my constituents got nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for bringing this bill to the floor today. The Committee on Energy and Commerce recently reported out a number of important bills, and I am pleased that the House will consider the passage of this bill and two others.

Chairman Bilirakis and I have sponsored the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Technical Corrections Act, and the bill is what it says it is; it makes a number of what are essentially housekeeping changes to important legislation reauthorizing America's network of community health centers.

The legislation that was passed last year was intended to help community health centers continue to serve a patient population, as my friend from Michigan said, that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Passage of these technical corrections will ensure that the bill meets this goal.

I think this bill is particularly important albeit it is a technical corrections bill, but it is particularly important as we see articles in the paper the last couple of days that the United States has 2.5 million more uninsured people than it did a year ago. I think this bill, while it is something we should do, underscores the failure of the Bush administration and of the Congress to address the important issues of the 2.5 million uninsured and all the unemployment in this country that has caused it.

Nonetheless, this bill is a step in the right direction. Community health centers are essential to take care of those who, neither through their workplace nor government, has been provided the health insurance that they should have. I ask my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The National Bone Marrow Donor Registry Reauthorization Act offers significant improvements to a very successful public health initiative. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for taking lead roles in advancing this legislation.

Tragically, Americans in need of lifesaving bone marrow transplants often face daunting odds. In fact, the chance of finding a compatible unrelated donor is only about one in 20,000. As the largest and most diverse list of potential donors, the registry is America's best chance to improve those odds. With a database of roughly 4 million potential donors, it offers hope to the thousands of Americans diagnosed every year with blood, metabolism or immune system disorders.

The registry has facilitated over 14,000 transplants since 1987, but there is much work that needs to be done. The legislation before us today permits that work to continue and expand with enhanced efforts to educate the general public about the registry, as well as significant outreach to minority populations. The bill also creates important new authority to apply the knowledge gained in treating marrow diseases to the task of preparing the Nation for radiological and chemical attacks.

I would be remiss if I did not also thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who has done remarkable work on this issue for as long as I have been in Congress. I thank him for his participation and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the Animal Drug User Fee Act. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their excellent work on this bill, especially the work that the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) did as the author of this legislation.

H.R. 1260, Mr. Speaker, builds on a successful program for fee-funded expedited review of new human drug applications authorized in 1992 by something called the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, known as PDUFA, the congressional acronym that we are wont to do around here.

We also reauthorized PDUFA some years ago. Congress has done a generally good job in speeding the approval process through the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. We have done not quite as good a job on expediting the approval of generic drugs, something that we need to work with the FDA to accelerate. It takes oftentimes as long as 18 months for a generic drug, something that costs consumers money by the slowness of the approval process.

I think this legislation on animal drugs is almost as important as those other two in terms of what it does with pets, what it does with zoos, and especially what it does with cattle and poultry. We have found, Mr. Speaker, in terms of an issue of antibiotic resistance where we have drugs that are on the market to cure animals, and sometimes those drugs have lost their effectiveness, as they have in the human population, and it is important that this legislation, H.R. 1260, the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) bill, get through Congress because it does, in fact, help to put more drugs on the market, more antibiotics in some indications to deal with the problems of antibiotic resistance.

We have had debates on the House floor that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) has been part of on this whole issue of antibiotic resistance. We have seen the use of nontherapeutic drugs given for prophylactic purposes to cattle and poultry, given for growth treatments for cattle and poultry where there has been some residue from those drugs in the human population that have caused problems with antibiotic resistance, both in the animals and, after human consumption, in human beings. And it is especially important in light of the fact that we really have not fixed that problem. We still use far too many drugs for nontherapeutic purposes for cattle and poultry. It is important that this legislation passes because I think H.R. 1260 will help us deal with that.

I again ask for support for this legislation. It matters for our pets. It matters for zoos. It matters for production of cattle and poultry, and it ultimately matters in human health. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1260.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, 160 or so years ago, former President John Quincy Adams, then a Congressman, came to the House floor and shared with Members of Congress letters from his constituents, mostly from women, who at that time could not vote. In those days, the conservative leaders of the House of Representatives actually passed a House rule prohibiting, banning the discussion or the debate of slavery in the U.S. House of Representatives. John Quincy Adams, believing that slavery should be abolished first and, second, believing that the elected Representatives of our country should be allowed to debate that issue, came to the House floor day after day, night after night, week after week, sharing those letters from constituents protesting the actions of the conservative leadership in this Congress.

In that tradition, I have, night after night since July, come to this House floor sharing letters from my constituents about their concerns about the war in Iraq and about what has happened now with the President's not owning up and telling us the truth about the war and the aftermath of the war. We have faced the same problem here where this Congress has refused to debate many of the questions investigating whether the President and the administration told the truth about our reasons going into Iraq and told the truth since about the unbid contracts going to Halliburton, about how much money we are spending, about our plan to get out of the war, about how he is, in fact, taking care of our troops, something that unfortunately has been forgotten. And I want to share letters from my constituents today with Members of the House of Representatives.

I will start with Tonya who writes: ``I am a veteran, and I know better than most people what the military needs right now. I support our troops in every way possible,'' Tonya, a veteran, writes. ``They all deserve raises and increases in their hazardous-duty pay,'' something that President Bush has opposed. ``In my opinion, our troops should be brought home. Let the UN and the Iraqi people clean up the mess.'' This can be done. ``Use that same $87 billion to stimulate the economy in the United States.''

Ann writes: ``Congress must shift from the passive stance taken after September 11 and accept their constitutional responsibility of oversight. Congress has required far too little accountability from the Bush administration and allowed them far too much discretion. This President has proven to be a failed leader incapable of running this country.'' What Ann is talking about is the unbid contracts. We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq right now. Three hundred million dollars of that has gone to private contractors, many of them the President's friends, many of them people who contributed money to the President's campaign. One of those companies that Ann is talking about is Halliburton, a company which has been beneficiary of hundreds of million of dollars in unbid contracts and just happens to be the company where Vice President Cheney used to be the CEO, and a company that is still paying Vice President Cheney $13,000 a month. That is Ann, a constituent.

Peter writes: ``The President and his clique should recognize the mistakes of the past and do what's fair to the Iraqi people. Let them decide for themselves, let them become a sovereign nation under the auspices of the UN. Bring back the troops, work through and with the UN. Spend the $87 billion and more at home for schools, health care, basic infrastructure. Take care of the people at home.''

George writes: ``If Bush wants his mess cleaned up by U.S. taxpayers, then he needs to concede that the tax cuts for the wealthy cannot stand.'' What George is referring to is that 42 percent of the tax cuts this Congress passed went to the 1 percent wealthiest people in this country. The average millionaire got a $92,000 tax cut, while half of my constituents got literally zero. George writes: ``Nothing good will come of this, with control passing to the UN for rebuilding.'' And, yes, we must pay for what we broke. ``The tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed immediately.''

The last letter I will read, Barbara writes: ``We cannot leave Iraq in the mess we have created. However, if the $87 billion is to be used to rebuild, we should have contractors from Iraq do the work, not Halliburton.'' Remember, that is the company where Vice President Cheney still receives $13,000 every month from while our Government is giving unbid contracts to that company to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. ``We need to turn this disaster over to the UN, if it is willing, get the world involved and turn this into a worldwide humanitarian effort. Bush has been extremely successful at raising money for his unopposed'' in the primary ``reelection campaign. Perhaps he should get out there and start requesting donations to rebuild Iraq, and let's not forget Afghanistan. I would gladly return my $400 tax rebate, and I am sure that his supporters would continue to attend the $2,000-a-plate dinners for the cause they support.''

Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear that people all over my district, my State, this country are unhappy with how the President has failed in supporting the troops by opposing pay raises, by cutting veterans benefits when they come home, and that my constituents are concerned about the billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq with no accountability. Madam Speaker, my constituents are concerned about the corruption coming right out of the White House where unbid contracts are going to the President's friends, the President's contributors, and the Vice President's company, which still continues, continues every month since he has been Vice President, every month since they have been given contracts in Iraq, continues to give Vice President Cheney $13,000 every single month.

Mr. Speaker, in 1838 a former President, John Quincy Adams, was a Member of this House of Representatives. Congress in those days, conservatives in Congress, had passed a House rule saying that slavery, believe it or not, could not be debated or discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives.

John Quincy Adams decided that he wanted the people of his district and other districts in Massachusetts to be heard, so he brought to the floor, every day or a couple of times a week, letters from his constituents protesting that slavery could not be discussed on the floor and supporting the ending of slavery in the United States.

Today, we are faced with a serious issue, perhaps not the seriousness quite of slavery in our country, the biggest blot in our history, but we are faced with the issues of what we do in Iraq and what we do with Iraq.

Debate in this House has not been particularly open or forthcoming, so I have chosen today, as John Quincy Adams did, to bring letters from constituents about Iraq to the House floor. I have received literally hundreds of them, as have my colleagues, questioning our intentions and the President's intentions, questioning the veracity of the administration, whether the administration has been straight-forward with the American people. I would like to share some of those letters with you.

Patty from North Royalton, Ohio, said, ``All of the worst case possibilities with Iraq, with the exception of the weapons of mass destruction, of course, and the truth of the administration, have proven true, and the American public is being asked to foot the bill.

``I suggest a proposal to break apart the military spending from the rebuilding. Focus this administration on the bare necessities for now. We are trying to do way too much at one time.''

Mary Lu wrote, ``U.S. out, UN in. We should pull our soldiers out and turn the rebuilding process over the United Nations. Congress should vote no on the $87 billion until the President works it out with the United Nations. Roll back the tax cuts to pay for the war. The only way we could responsibly pay for Iraq's reconstruction is by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. If we roll back the tax cuts on the top 1 percent, we could pay for the $87 billion and have money left over for other programs, like prescription drugs for the elderly.''

Jay of Richfield, Ohio, writes, ``If we assume there are 290 million men, women and children in the U.S., that means that every man, woman and child in America will be contributing $300 to the reconstruction of a country we will never visit, and whose welfare would have never affected us but for the lies of the Bush administration.''

Janet from Norton, Ohio, writes, ``Please do not vote for one more cent to be spent on this losing proposition in Iraq. Enough is enough.''

Judith writes, ``Our President has arrogantly put us into a position where we stand, in many ways, alone, and we are making a huge mess of things. We do have an obligation to the Iraqis, but they aren't happy with our presence there and are crippling our ability to help them. The most effective thing we can do is turn over control of the operation to the United Nations.''

Helen writes, ``Wealthy Republicans who voted for Bush do not send their kids to die in Iraq, and wealthy Republicans made sure their tax money was given to them before presenting the bill in Iraq. The rest of the tax money isn't theirs to spend on defense contracts. It is ours.

``The U.S. kleptocrats want to profit from Iraq,'' talking about Halliburton and many of the President's friends who are getting the unbid contracts. ``They can only do it by keeping the UN out.''

I found in these letters, Mr. Speaker, literally dozens of them questioning the fact we are spending $1 billion a week right now, before the President asked for $87 billion more. A third of that money is going to private contractors, many of them contributors to the President, most of those contracts unbid, and many of them going to a company called Halliburton, from which Vice President Cheney is still drawing a $13,000 a month benefit check.

Andrew writes, ``I believe the Bush administration should be required by law to submit to the following conditions before his request for $87 billion is approved. The $87 billion should be funded by the immediate cancellation of the recently-passed tax cut for the wealthy, where 43 percent of the tax benefit goes to the richest 1 percent of Americans.''

It is clear there is a theme here. The American people in this mail, and in the mail that literally every Member of this Congress is getting, the people of this country are concerned that this $87 billion is only a start, that it is going to be a lot more in the future. There is no plan. The American people need to continue to speak out.

Madam Speaker, in 1838, John Quincy Adams, as a former President, came to this floor as a Member of the House of Representatives. In those days the conservatives in this Congress passed a rule banning the discussion of slavery on the House floor. Congressman John Quincy Adams, former President Adams, was outraged by that rule; but what he did was come to the House floor and a couple of times every week read letters from his constituents opposing slavery, demanding that slavery be abolished in the United States.

Today, 160-some years later, many of us in this Chamber feel an outrage towards what is happening with Iraq and especially that the leaders in this Chamber are unwilling to debate many of the issues around Iraq, how they propose to spend $87 billion, asking the President for his plans, wanting the President's contributors and contractors in Iraq who are literally receiving hundreds of millions of dollars a week to account for those dollars.

I thought tonight, in the tradition of John Quincy Adams, I would read letters from constituents of mine around the State who are expressing their views about Iraq.

Kim writes, ``Why should we spend $87 billion when our own servicemen and women who were in Iraq only got one meal MRE, meal ready to eat, per day, went 30 days without showers, not enough heavy artillery or ammunition. They fought hard in Iraq and then come back and don't even get the GI Bill to pay for their educations and medical. Use the $87 billion to compensate our military personnel first.'' That is Kim.

A veteran, Jack, writes, ``Just a very short few months ago, we were asked, no told, that we had to turn over $70 billion,'' that was the first $70 billion, ``for the war in Iraq. That money was dispensed,'' Jack, a Vietnam vet writes, ``on the backs of veterans in decreased benefits; schools, health care, Social Security, Medicare, redistribution of wealth through the Bush tax cuts, even the active duty military was not excluded from cuts. Now the administration is asking for another $87 billion. Who's going to get thrown out in the cold when the next round of cuts come if Bush is given his $87 billion,'' Jack, a Vietnam vet, writes.

Michele writes, ``The way this grandmother sees it: for whatever the reasons, Bush wanted the war and misled the public to start it. Bush gave a tax cut to many of the wealthiest Americans, many of whom stated it was wrong. Bush has accumulated an unprecedented amount of campaign financing from these wealthy friends.''

What these letters all home in on, Madam Speaker, is that we are today spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. $300 million of that $1 billion is going to private contractors, many of them going to Halliburton, one of the largest companies in the United States, a company which still pays Vice President Cheney who used to work there, still pays him $13,000 a month, and people want these hundreds of millions of dollars of tax dollars going to these private contractors, people want them accounted for, as we can see in these letters.

Joseph writes, ``We are between a rock and a hard place. We are over there because of lies and it looks as if we will be stuck there for many years to come. First, this administration should roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy.''

If my colleagues recall, Congress passed, at the President's urging, tax cuts, literally hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts where 43 percent of those tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of people in this country. That is what Joe is writing about.

``In order to increase their now questionable integrity, this administration should agree to turn over total control of Iraq and its oil supplies to the U.N. and cooperate with the U.N. and our other allies 100 percent.''

Again, Joe who writes in is troubled by the fact that we are giving hundreds of millions of dollars a week to private contractors who are not accountable, many of them the President's contributors, most of them the President's friends, and one of those companies a company that is still paying Vice President Cheney $13,000 a month.

The last letter I would like to read is from Joseph. ``It appears we have no choice but to spend the $87 billion, but Congress should make sure that the money comes from a rollback of Mr. Bush's excessive tax cuts for the wealthy, which primarily benefits the rich in this country. I sincerely hope the Congress does not give the money to Mr. Bush without stipulations. Three million Americans have lost their jobs,'' actually about 3.5 million now. ``Three million Americans have lost their jobs in the country since Mr. Bush moved into the White House. More Americans are suffering and dying because they are unable to pay for proper health care and health care insurance. Exactly how we can afford to spend $87 billion is something that I don't even understand.'' That is a letter from Joe.

Madam Speaker, I think it is clear what people in this country think. We need answers, we need accountability, and we really need to know the truth.

Mr. Speaker, 140 years or so ago, former President John Quincy Adams came to the House floor and read letters from his constituents about slavery and about the abolitionists because the House actually passed a rule in 1838 saying that Congress could not debate the issue of slavery on the House floor, believe it or not.

Today, we have not really been free; we have not had committee hearings; we have not had floor debate on a lot of the questions about what is happening in Iraq, getting answers from the President and from the administration about the reconstruction, the cost, how the money is being spent; all of that, and I have gotten letters from hundreds of constituents asking for answers to those questions.

But what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is information from the Bush administration that obfuscates, that deceives, that simply does not tell us.

Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz recently said, ``No one that I know of would ever say that this war is cheap.''

Well, that is not what the President's people were telling us before the invasion. Budget Director Mitch Daniels said Iraq, back then, before the attack, said Iraq would be ``an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid.''

Now, Jane from Sheffield Lake, Ohio, wrote to me, ``We cannot let this enormous deception from the Bush administration continue.''

Back several months ago, White House economist Glen Hubbard said the costs of any intervention would be very small.

Edward from Akron in my district wrote, ``I believe we were duped by this administration through misleading statements and outright lies.''

Larry Lindsey, the President's Chief Economic Adviser, estimated the war in Iraq would cost $100 billion to $200 billion, the war and the aftermath and the reconstruction. He was shunned by the administration after saying that. He was later fired because of that.

From Akron Ohio, Susan writes, ``Please represent us in Summit County and get to the bottom of these untruths and these lies.''

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the President's proposal to spend $87 billion. That is just this year. That is in addition to the $65 billion check that Congress and the American people have already written to the President for the war in Iraq. This $87 billion details how the President's request allocates $157 per Iraqi, U.S. taxpayers pay $157 per Iraqi, for sewage improvements, but in the President's budget there is only $14 per American for sewage improvement in this country.

The administration, according to the President's request for this $87 billion, is devoting $38 per Iraqi for hospitals, but in this country, only $3.30 per American citizen for hospitals.

The President is seeking almost $6 billion to rebuild and expand Iraq's electricity generation and distribution system, as millions of Americans are regaining power lost from Hurricane Isabel and as Congress continues, frankly, not very well in this Congress, to deal with the fallout from the August blackout.

The President requests from the $87 billion, 350 times more money for Iraqis individually; $255 per Iraqi for electrical power rehabilitation, 71 cents per American for electrical power rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, Americans need some answers. How are we going to spend this money? Where has the $1 billion a week gone now? We need accountability. We need, most importantly, for the President to assure us that our troops will be well-supplied, and that our troops will be safer than they have in the past.

In fact, I received a call just last night from a young man whom I know who was injured in Iraq from my district. He spent 70 days in the hospital. Because of this administration's policy, he owes $550 back to Bethesda Hospital, back to the government, because the government has charged him, believe it or not, $8.10 for every day's meal he has eaten in that hospital as an injured soldier in the United States of America, injured in the battlefield in Iraq. Yet, now the administration simply is not telling us how we are going to spend that money, not making the private contractors, many of them friends of the President who are getting literally hundreds of millions of dollars, not disclosing where that money is going, how they are spending it.

I would close, Mr. Speaker, Elizabeth from Akron writes, ``The Bush administration's blatant disregard for the ability of the American people to sort through, to discuss and to reach reasonable conclusions on important issues is disturbing. What else aren't they telling us? What other lies are they trying to foist on us? Whether one supported the war or not, the question of the obvious and overwhelming deceptions the administration seems to regard as normal is disturbing.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to the life of Jacob E. Davis II, a model of hard work, commitment, and community service, who passed away on August 29. Jacob's exemplary career began in college as a student at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. After graduating cum laude, he served four years in the U.S. Navy and another seven in the Navy Reserves. He worked for Gov. Michael DiSalle of Ohio and former U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn before earning his law degree in 1963 from The Ohio State University. In 1963, Jacob Davis joined the law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease in Columbus, Ohio, and was appointed Partner in 1970. After seven years managing the firm's Washington office, he returned to the firm's Columbus office and to the city he considered his home.

Throughout his career, Jacob remained committed to his community and his church. He was active in the First Community Church, serving in many leadership positions, including Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He was a member of the Columbus Mayor's Human Rights Commission and the Franklin County Veterans Memorial Board. As Secretary of State, I appointed him to the Ohio Elections Commission in 1990, where he served admirably.

Jacob E. Davis II left an indelible mark on his community and those close to him. I extend my condolences to Sallie, his loving wife of 36 years, his family, and all those who will treasure Jacob's memory.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his good work advocating rural health care. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for his epiphany and his conversion in supporting the fallback provision, something he voted against in committee; and I hope that he will let the conference committee, particularly the Republican conferees of his party, know that he does, in fact, support the fallback provision. I hope that that will move the Medicare bill along perhaps better.

I rise in support of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Kind) motion to instruct on behalf of retirees living in rural America. Yes, we are continuing to push this body to take a stand on behalf of retirees living in rural America. And yes, we voted on the same motion yesterday. But anyone who thinks Congress always gets it right the first time just does not know much about Congress.

Last week, during our first round of debate on this motion, my colleague argued against it. He expressed concern that we actually have to spend money to fulfill our commitment to rural retirees. Apparently, Congress can afford to cut $3 trillion from Federal tax revenues, overwhelmingly from the wealthiest, most privileged taxpayers, but cannot afford to help retirees in Chillicothe, Ohio, secure the same basic health care services as retirees in Columbus, Ohio.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush called Medicare the binding commitment of a caring society. Does that commitment extend to rural America, or does it not? We have an obligation to pay health care providers adequately for the care they provide. We cannot pretend in this body that the financial challenges rural providers face are the same as those of urban providers. Ideally, the health care system would be thriving in rural America. Realistically, the health care sector is faltering in rural America.

A disproportionate number of seniors live in rural areas. Medicare is the lifeblood of rural health care. That is just the way it is. We can either ignore the impact of inadequate Medicare financing, or we can do something about it. What we definitely should not do is, as this body does all too often, simply pay lip service to the problem. The House Medicare bill simultaneously increases and reduces reimbursement to rural hospitals. That is paying lip service to the problem.

The Kind motion, the motion from the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend, instructs conferees to move in one direction only, the right direction, and pay hospital rates that keep up with inflation. This motion instructs conferees to ensure there is a Federal fallback insurance program for areas of the country in which no private plan is available, something that we all think is essential.

While this provision is particularly important for rural beneficiaries, it is also one of the most important for any Member of Congress who really is worried about wasting constituents' tax dollars. It is basic economics. Absent a Federal fallback provision, which I am glad to see the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) now supports, the private insurance industry will have a monopoly over Medicare prescription drug coverage. Do my colleagues think the cost of coverage to taxpayers will be higher or lower under those circumstances, when the insurance industry has a monopoly?

In the 6 years that the Medicare+Choice HMO program has been in effect, has an HMO ever told Congress, hey, we do not need any

more money, you are paying us enough? Year after year HMOs demand more money from taxpayers even though, in fact, we were already overpaying them. Do not take my word for it; ask the nonpartisan General Accounting Office.

Medicare+Choice has inflated Medicare spending, draining precious tax dollars from the program. Making Medicare and making U.S. taxpayers fully beholden to HMOs is not going to improve the situation.

So, Mr. Speaker, whether our goal is to refrain from wasting tax dollars or to fulfill the Nation's commitment to rural Medicare beneficiaries, or, I hope, both, I urge my fellow Members to support the Kind motion.