Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, where I come from, trade is a 4- letter word: J-O-B-S. Unfortunately, this Congress, this U.S. Trade Representative, and this President do not spell very well.

In the 2\1/2\ years since George Bush became President, we have lost 3.1 million jobs in this country, we have lost 2.1 million manufacturing jobs in this country, and President Bush's answer is, more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, more cuts in services to veterans, to education, to health care, and more flawed trade agreements. There was fast track, and now there is Singapore and Chile.

American workers understand these trade agreements do not work. We have lost 2.1 million manufacturing jobs in 2\1/2\ years. American workers understand that NAFTA has failed. Ten years ago when NAFTA passed, we had a $1.7 billion surplus with Mexico and Canada. Today, 10 years later, we have a $25 billion deficit with Canada and Mexico.

American workers understand that our China trade policy does not work. A dozen years ago we had a $100 million trade deficit with China. Today, under these failed policies, for a decade we have had a $100 billion trade deficit with China, and growing.

President Bush, Sr., told the American people that for every billion dollars in trade surplus or trade deficit, it meant 18,000 jobs. That means that our trade deficit with China every year costs us 1.8 million jobs. Yet we continue the same failed trade policies that hemorrhage American jobs.

In 1992, the U.S. had a $38 billion trade deficit. Today, it is a $418 billion trade deficit. We had a bigger trade deficit in May of this year than we had for the entire year 11 years ago.

And white collar workers are next. The New York Times said IBM's top employee relations executive said 3 million service jobs will be gone by 2015, 3 million more. These are white collar: 3 million more jobs lost.

American workers, as I said, understand that these trade agreements, these failed trade policies hemorrhage American jobs.

Two years ago, President Clinton and the Congress finally figured it out. We passed a trade agreement, the Jordan Trade Agreement, that lifted up environmental labor standards, lifted up standards, lifted up people's lives, promoted American values rather than pulling down labor standards and pulling down environmental standards. Now President Bush has brought us back to the same failed NAFTA policies. That is what this Chile trade agreement is about.

The worst part is the Bush administration has announced that these agreements with Chile and Singapore will serve as the model for future trade agreements such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. They will serve as the model

for these next huge trade agreements that will hemorrhage even more jobs.

The administration impact report on the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which we will debate next, estimates that we will lose 22,000 manufacturing jobs.

That is the problem. This trade policy is continuing to hemorrhage American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, in 11 years here I have never seen anything like this. The drug industry and its allies have spent the past few weeks unloading a lobbying blitzkrieg on Members of Congress. They have run disingenuous ads likening America's closest allies to rogue states. They have targeted individual House Members, accusing them of putting their constituents' lives at risk. They have manufactured claims that importation would encourage abortion.

These are the actions of a lobby that knows it loses on the merits and desperately wants to change the subject.

Nothing new here.

For years the drug industry has been spending a lot of time and a lot of money trying to change the subject. During the past decade, the drug industry spent a half billion dollars to tell public officials and the American people what they should believe and how they should think. They have spent $100 million to assist President Bush and the Republican leaders in this House.

These are the actions of a lobby that wants desperately to talk about anything but its unsupportable and unjustifiable prices.

If this were a sincere, serious debate about the public's interest in securing safe, affordable medicine, opponents of this bill would not just be complaining about safety, they would be suggesting ways to help importation address their concerns. In an honest debate, Mr. Speaker, opponents would not just be lambasting importation; they would be suggesting alternative strategies for bringing prices down. They have done none of that with their heavy-handed lobbying.

It is not about protecting consumers. It is about protecting the drug industry. It is just the latest tool in a drug industry lobbying effort that knows no bounds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who knows that the drug industry imports $15 billion worth of drugs into this country, but then claims that importation is unsafe in order to protect their profits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who knows the drug industry profits for 20 years running are the highest of any industry in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who knows that a Federal Government that says it can store nuclear waste for 10,000 years can surely ensure the safety of imported prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who recognizes that 270 Members voted for free trade for Singapore yesterday while many oppose free trade for prescription drugs for American today.

Mr. Speaker, could the Chair let us know how much time each of us has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) who knows the drug industry has 1.5 lobbyists for every Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who knows opponents of this bill offer no alternative strategy for bringing down drug prices.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who knows that the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen is more expensive in our country than in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who knows that a drug you cannot afford is simply not a safe drug.

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) who knows that a Federal Government who says it can build a national missile defense can surely ensure the safety of imported drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) who knows this debate is not about safety, but about drug industry profits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who knows that if you want to talk safety, we should talk about Americans having to split their pills to afford to pay for their expensive medicines.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who knows the drug industry's pricing policies put the health of American patients at risk every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who knows the same Federal Government that put a man on the Moon certainly can ensure the safety of prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time.

Where I come from in Ohio, trade is a four-letter word, J-O-B-S. Unfortunately, the President, the United States Trade Representative, and the

Republican leadership do not spell very well. They ought to simply look around.

Since President Bush has taken office, we have lost 3 million jobs in this country. We have lost 2.1 million manufacturing jobs in this country.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his comments.

I think that any reasonable people, if we would simply go home and talk to workers, talk to people, they will say that the anxiety they feel so often is because of our trade policy. These 3 million jobs we have lost, these 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are because of an economic program of tax cuts where a millionaire gets a tax cut of $93,000 and children and their families get nothing and families making 15 and 20 and $25,000 a year, a Bush economic program that cuts benefits for health care, cuts benefits for education, cuts benefits for veterans, and these trade agreements, trade agreement after trade agreement after trade agreement, have cost American jobs.

I look around. Last Sunday, there was a rally at a Goodyear plant in Akron, Ohio, in my district. Goodyear has only 14 factories in the United States left, one of the biggest rubber companies in the world. Most of their plants now are overseas. We had rallies at each of these 14 plants simultaneously, and I walked around before speaking at this rally, and these workers get it.

They understand the reason their jobs have gone overseas and those tires are made overseas and sold back into the United States. They understand that the failure of our economic policy lies at the feet of the failure of our trade policy. They understand that NAFTA took a surplus with Mexico and Canada in 1993 and has turned it into a $25 billion trade deficit. They understand that our China policy, with a $100 million trade surplus only a dozen years ago, $100 million with an ``M,'' now is a $100 billion trade deficit with that country.

President Bush, Sr., used to say that $1 billion of trade turned into 18,000 jobs. If we have a $1 billion trade surplus, we have a net gain of 18,000 jobs. If we have a trade deficit of $1 billion, we have a net loss of 18,000 jobs. Our China policy alone has turned basically a neutral job situation into 1.8 million jobs lost every year just because of our bilateral trade situation with China, 1.8 million jobs every year; and most of those jobs are good paying manufacturing jobs.

Mexico has about 400, 500,000 jobs every year, Mexico-Canada trade deficit. Goodyear workers understand that. Steelworkers in Ohio and across the country understand that. Auto workers understand that. People who work with their hands understand that these trade agreements hemorrhage jobs.

Two years ago, even Congress understood it when we passed the Jordan trade agreement. The Jordan trade agreement lifted people up, did not pull standards down. It lifted labor standards up. It lifted environmental standards up. It lifted food safety standards up, but Congress seems to have forgotten that lesson of Jordan. Hence, today, we consider Chile and we consider Singapore.

These are two agreements that do not lift standards up. They pull standards down. They will cost American jobs. They will weaken American labor standards. They will weaken America in world and environmental standards.

Let me just briefly, Mr. Speaker, take two issues to show that with Chile, people say Chile has decent labor standards. They do today, but under this agreement, unlike the Jordan agreement, where the Jordan agreement said labor standards are determined by ILO, International Labor Organization, standards, with Chile, Chile under this agreement gets to enforce its own labor standards. They may be pretty good labor standards today; but if we get a majority in the Chilean government like the majority in this country, we will have effective pressure to weaken labor law, as my friends on the other side of the aisle do here.

So Chile will see a weakening of labor and environmental law, and then we will see a weakening of labor and environmental standards under this trade agreement. If Chile had ILO labor standards, that would not be the case.

The second issue is, under Jordan, we got rid of the Chapter 11 investor state provisions, which, unfortunately, under NAFTA, allows corporations to sue foreign governments, shifting sovereignty from a democratically-elected government to corporate interests where a corporation can sue a government for passing a public health law or a food safety or an environmental law, weakening those laws that governments democratically attain.

We should reject Chile and Singapore. We should go back to the Jordan model. We should reject Chile today, we should reject the Singapore agreement today, and we should go back to the Jordan model. The Jordan model lifts standards. It lifts people up rather than pulling people down. It is good for the environment, it is good for labor, it is good for food safety, and it is good for American values.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from, trade is a four- letter word, J-O-B-S. But this Congress and this President just do not spell very well. The last 2\1/2\ years since President Bush took office this country has lost 3 million jobs, more than any President since Herbert Hoover. We have lost 2 million manufacturing jobs, mostly which have gone overseas; we have a trade deficit of $450 billion. The trade deficit last month was greater than the trade deficit for the entire year 10 years ago. The trade deficit is 10 times last year what it was a decade-plus ago. We are hemorrhaging jobs with every billion dollars of trade deficit, now up to $450 billion. We continue to hemorrhage jobs.

President Bush's answer to this 3 million jobs loss, 2 million manufacturing jobs lost, President Bush's answer is more trade agreements.

Congress this week will vote on two trade agreements, one with Singapore and one with Chile. Congress's vote

this week will be on these two trade agreements, which are frankly more of the same, more NAFTA, more hemorrhaging of jobs, more weakening of environmental and food safety laws, and all of the values we in this country hold dear.

Most of all, these trade agreements with Chile and Singapore are all about jobs. When we look at what has happened with NAFTA in the last 10 years since NAFTA passed this Chamber in November 1993, in these 10 years we have seen a trade surplus with Mexico turn into a huge trade deficit. We have seen job gains with Mexico and Canada turn into huge job losses. We have seen since Congress has passed Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and Most-favored Nation status temporary renewals every year the last dozen years. We have seen our trade deficit with China go from $100 million in 1990, to $100 billion in 2002.

Every billion dollars, according to President Bush, Sr., meant a loss of 18,000 jobs. So with a trade deficit of $450 billion, all we have to do is do the math to understand why the job picture in this country is so bleak and with passing Chile and Singapore trade agreements and the rest of the President's trade agenda, Central America free trade agreement, Free Trade Act to the Americas to extend NAFTA to the whole hemisphere, we understand why the job picture in the future is even bleaker.

Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago on Sunday I spoke to a rally of Goodyear workers in Akron, Ohio. There are 14 Goodyear plants scattered across the United States. There were rallies held by the Steel Workers, formerly the Rubber Workers, at each of these 14 plants across this great country. Everyone that came up to me before, during, and after the rally talked about job loss, talked about their anxiety, economic insecurity and kept asking why does President Bush want a trade agreement with Singapore, why does President Bush want a trade agreement with Chile, why does President Bush want to extend NAFTA to Central America and why does President Bush want to extend NAFTA to all of Latin America.

Those workers understand that trade is a four-letter word, and it is spelled J-O-B-S. They spell better than President Bush and the leadership in this Congress because they understand that these trade policies with Chile, with Singapore, with a Central America free trade agreement, with the Free Trade Act with the Americas, these trade agreements, in addition to weakening our environmental standards, in addition to undercutting labor standards, in addition to weakening food safety standards, in addition to undercutting what we hold dear in this country, they understand these trade agreements more than anything else are about jobs. They are about the loss of jobs, about the hemorrhaging of jobs, about jobs going overseas year after year after year; and they are not coming back unless we change our trade policy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, where I come from, trade is a four-letter word, J-O-B- S. Unfortunately, this administration, this Trade Representative, the leadership in this Congress just simply do not spell very well.

We all know what has happened. We lost 3.1 million jobs in the 2\1/2\ years the Bush administration has been in the White House. We have lost 2.1 million manufacturing jobs. We have lost them because of an economic program of tax cuts for the wealthy, the most privileged. We have lost them because of the cuts in veterans, in education, in health benefits. And we lost them because of trade agreements, one trade agreement after the other.

Last Sunday, I spoke at a rally for Goodyear. There are 14 Goodyear plants left in the United States. Worker after worker came up to me and said, What are you doing about our jobs that move overseas?

They understand that NAFTA has been a failure from a billion-dollar- plus trade surplus 10 years ago, pre-NAFTA, to a $25 billion deficit with Canada and Mexico post-NAFTA. They understand that our China trade policy has been a failure. Only $100 million, with an ``M,'' trade deficit a dozen years ago; $100 billion, with a ``B,'' trade deficit today where thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe a million U.S. jobs have gone to China.

Two years ago Congress got it right. This body passed without dissent a Jordan trade agreement. They got it right because it had labor standards. It had environmental standards. It represented American values and Jordanian values that lifted people up, not pulled standards down.

But now we have Singapore. Now we have Chile; next we have the Central America Free Trade Agreement, where the model under Jordan was strong environment, strong labor standards, strong food safety standards, our values.

The Levin amendment makes sense because it will restore what this Congress rallied around, a Jordan-type trade agreement which meant raising values, supporting American values, raising the standards that we hold dear on labor and the environment. It makes sense. It is the right message. It is the right legislation for American jobs. It will explain to those Goodyear workers in Akron and 13 other plants across this country, explain to steel workers who have lost their jobs, explain to auto workers that might lose their jobs that this Congress actually is on the side of American values, is on the side of fighting for American jobs, cares about the environment, cares about food safety, cares about supporting American values, bringing back American jobs, preserving what we have, fighting for what we have.

The Levin amendment makes sense.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the special order time of the gentleman from Arizona.

Madam Speaker, I first thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his intellectual honesty and consistency and his clear vision on so many foreign policy issues.

A hundred sixty-five years ago, Madam Speaker, the United States Congress, amazingly enough, the House of Representatives, passed a rule prohibiting its Members from debating the great issue of slavery, the greatest blemish on American history. In those days, John Quincy Adams, former President, then elected to the House of Representatives, came down to the well of the House week after week reading letters from his constituents, reading what he called petitions from groups in his State of Massachusetts, many of them written by women in women's clubs, women who actually could not in those days, as we all know, vote in American elections. He read these letters protesting this rule prohibiting the discussion of slavery and protesting the institution of slavery itself.

Today, we find ourselves in a Congress where this Congress has refused to discuss and investigate what exactly the President did and said about weapons of mass destruction. As the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) said earlier in the evening, an organization called MoveOn.org, an organization of 1\1/2\ million Americans, tens of thousands in my State of Ohio, asked its members to sign an on-line petition saying that we believe Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Tens of thousands of those members, in addition to signing the petitions, wrote letters to Members of Congress. And similar to John Quincy Adams's coming to the House floor to expose the Congress' inability and unwillingness to discuss issues of national import, many of us have come to the House floor every night to share the concerns, not just our concerns, Members of Congress, but to share the concerns of people in my district in my State. And I would like to share a handful of those letters.

Dennis Gadel of Akron, Ohio wrote: ``What makes this tragedy especially difficult for freedom-loving people to come to terms with is that, unlike September 11, this tragedy was self-inflicted. In order to have a strong democracy, we must hold leaders accountable for their deception.''

Ms. Barbara Hanselman from Wadsworth wrote: ``I consider it my patriotic duty to give my informed support to those who represent our people. When I cannot trust my government to speak the truth,'' Ms. Hanselman wrote, ``our very basic freedoms are eroded. To lead a country to war, when many U.S. citizens and millions of people around the world were against this act of aggression without clear evidence, by calculated misrepresentation of the facts, is so beneath what my country stands for.''

Jim Miraldi of Lorain, Ohio, my hometown, writes: ``Our leaders must respect democracy. If our leaders lie or mislead their own people to support military action to make an immense change in foreign policy, then this greatly undermines our country'' `` . . . Saddam Hussein was'' . . . ``evil,'' certainly. ``Maybe we should have gone

ahead with this invasion. But that decision should have been based on accurate reporting by our leaders and not by deceiving the American people.''

Patrick and Sandra Garrett, Mr. and Mrs. Garrett of Avon, Ohio, in northern Ohio, write: ``Democracy cannot endure without truth and integrity from its leadership. Look at what the Vietnam war, the Iran Contra scandal, and Watergate did to the public's confidence in government,'' the Garretts wrote from Avon.

Cheryl Elman from Akron, Ohio, wrote: ``You and a handful of others may truly be all that stand between public ignorance about possible manipulations of policy in the Iraqi war. An enlightened public is a prerequisite for functioning democracy.'' Please continue your commitment ``to free flow of information. Do what you can to shed light on this issue.''

Teri Egan from Shaker Heights, Ohio, writes: ``As the toll rises daily in Iraq with our troops in harm's way, we need to know if there is any credible reason for continuing in this manner.''

Wanda Crawford from Cincinnati, Ohio, in the other end of the State, writes: ``With American soldiers' lives at risk and American soldiers' lives lost already, the American public needs to know the true reason for our entry into war with Iraq. Covering up the truth dishonors the sacrifice of those in uniform. As a daughter and a sister of veterans,'' Ms. Crawford writes, ``I am appalled that soldiers may have been lied to about the reasons they were sent to Iraq. Please support an independent, bipartisan investigation to get to the truth of the administration's call to arms.''

Norma Roberts from Lexington, Ohio, writes: ``I was alarmed at recent reports that our government led us into war without honest justification. President Bush responds by saying that such reports are attempts to `rewrite history,' but the point is that the American people do not know the real history. If this country is to be a model of democracy, the people must be informed.''

Madam Speaker, it goes on and on. We ask for this investigation. Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have written to their Members of Congress asking for an investigation into the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, 160-or-so years ago, Congress passed a rule prohibiting Members of Congress from debating the issue of slavery. The issue of slavery, the greatest blemish on our Nation's history, was actually not debated in Congress for many years because conservative leaders of this body simply said it could not be, and passed a rule prohibiting it.

John Quincy Adams, former President and later Member of Congress in the 1830s and 1840s came to this Chamber of the House of Representatives and collected letters from his constituents. He called them petitions from mostly women's group in Massachusetts. Women in those days were not allowed to voted, as most of us know. He brought these petitions from women who were opposed to slavery and read them on the House floor.

While the rules said he could not debate slavery, he was simply a mouthpiece, a conduit, was a megaphone for the concerns of the people in his district about a great national problem.

Fast forward the clock to 2003. We now have a legislative leadership which is again saying no to debating issues of what really happened with the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. While the President may have made, perhaps we are not really sure quite what happened, but we want to investigate. We want to know more. There has been no avenue to do that in this body.

So as a result a group called Moveon.org has gathered online hundreds of thousands of petitions and tens of thousands of American citizens including dozens, dozens, dozens in my district, thousands in the State of Ohio, tens of thousands around the country, speaking out about what they think.

So I am going to share in the next 3\1/2\ minutes or so, Mr. Speaker, what people in my district are saying when they sign this petition saying that Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

John Ciraldo of Akron, Ohio, in my District, ``It seems to me that the evidence of deceit led by the Bush administration is becoming more and more prevalent.''

``I feel that it is becoming more of an issue to the American people. As part of a democracy, we believe that we have a right to know.''

``Please take a stand,'' Mr. Ciraldo writes, ``for what I believe you know to be right. Be fair to our Nation and show a true patriotism, investigate. All of America has the right to know.'' Mr. Ciraldo from Akron.

Thomas Spalding, also from Akron, Ohio, shorter letter, ``Please pursue an

open investigation of the rationale for war that was used by the Bush administration to assuage public doubts about preemptive, unilateral action against Iraq.'' Mr. Spalding from Akron, Ohio.

From Elyria, Ohio, Linda Mitchell writes, ``As an American and one of your constituents, I want to know the truth behind what led up to the grossly unjust `war' in Iraq. It is time for Congress to shed light upon what I believe we all know was the administration's misuse of the tragedy of September 11 to meet their own greedy need for oil.'' Ms. Mitchell from Elyria, Ohio.

From Strongsville, Ohio, John Regetz, Junior, ``I strongly urge you to vote for the establishment of the commission to investigate the validity of the evidence that the present administration used to start the Iraq war. It appears to me that, for the first time in our history,'' for the first time in our history Mr. Regetz writes, ``we unjustly started a war without first being truly provoked. I think the American people need to know the true facts about this whole mess we now find ourselves in.''

Elizabeth from Akron, Ohio, ``There is little argument that the past three years have been the saddest in our Nation's history. A nonelected President and his staff callously made critical decisions that deeply affect us all today and for generations to come. One such decision,'' she writes, ``was to end the weapons inspection program and preemptively strike Iraq, supposedly before we were struck by weapons of mass destruction.

``Now, countless civilian and soldier deaths later, yet still no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the administration is willing to admit that the intelligence leading to this mess was flawed. At the same time, they are talking about sending even more of our military personnel into the chaos that they have created.''

Susan Clements, also from Akron, Ohio. Ms. Clements writes, It really is of crucial importance that we find out the truth in the matter. Lying to the American people about anything is troubling, but to lie about something like this is outrageous. Support for this war was lukewarm at best. Even that was a result of that argument. To date, thousands of people have died, a country has been devastated, a region thrown into turmoil simply to allow Bush's cronies to make a fortune by cleaning up the mess that he made. This is unconscionable. Please support the American people and hold them accountable. Thank you.

The last letter I will share with my colleagues as my time runs out is from Ron Collins of Barberton, Ohio. Mr. Collins writes, I am certain that you, like many of us here were frightened by the statements made in public back in the State of the Union and earlier by the Bush administration. If those statements were false, we must know of this Mr. Collins writes. Please show America that you are not afraid to stand up for the rights of the people who put you in office. Despite any pressures you may have been placed under to ignore these issues, those of us in your district implore you to live up to the oath of office you took when you were sworn in.

I thank those people in Ohio that have shared their concerns with me and, most importantly, with the members of this body and with the American people because their concerns do indeed, Mr. Speaker, need to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the product of a good-faith bipartisan process. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their work on this bill.

The United States and the global community of which we are part can only benefit from the development of bioterrorism countermeasures. Because the very existence of countermeasures renders bioterrorism less lethal and, therefore, less attractive to would-be terrorists, new countermeasures, therefore, serve a dual purpose. They are both an antidote and a deterrent to future attacks.

For the sake of national and international security, it makes sense to invest in both basic and advanced research aimed at producing new bioterrorism countermeasures. When an opportunity to produce one of these countermeasures presents itself, it makes sense to capitalize quickly on that opportunity. That is the logic behind this legislation.

The bill establishes an expedited process for Federal support of countermeasure research and a procurement process to encourage private sector investment in this research. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is

not a blank check. Congress has a responsibility to weigh competing funding priorities and set funding levels appropriately.

In that context, it is appropriate to reiterate a concern that I raised last week while we debated the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Bioterrorism funding is essential and important. The legislation before us is essential and important, but our investment in bioterrorism should not and must not come at the expense of research focusing on cancer and other health threats.

Let me repeat that. Our investment in bioterrorism should not and must not come at the expense of research focusing on cancer and other health threats. The appropriations bill we passed last week here funds the National Institutes of Health at a level barely sufficient to support existing research projects, much less new research. That is a direct outgrowth from the tax cut that this Congress passed recently and the tax cuts for the wealthiest, most privileged citizens this Congress passed 2 years ago. It means we have not had enough money to appropriate for basic research, for medical research for the National Institutes of Health. It means it may be difficult for us in the future to deal with bioterrorism funding as fully as we should.

This Congress has made choices by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, most privileged citizens, and as a result has made far too many cuts in health care; and health care is clearly inadequately funded, as our committee has discussed over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, finding ways to prevent and to treat and to cure disease is an enduring national priority. Interest in it does not wax, does not wane. Our investment in it should not either. We need to make these decisions in a way that serves the public and serves the interest of more medical research. We have a responsibility to balance priorities to provide adequate resources to prepare the country for a possible bioterrorist attack while maintaining strong support for other medical research priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to restore the momentum that we once had behind groundbreaking medical research while continuing to move forward in the area of bioterrorism preparedness. This legislation before us today promotes the latter goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and others who worked on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my good friend.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the comments both of the chairman of the committee and Secretary Thompson in his letter that the chairman just mentioned.

I applaud the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Wamp) interest in building domestic capacity; and in terms of purchasing from domestic sources, I think that is an important thing that this Congress too often forgets. When we look at our trade policy, often that tends to favor investors and tends often to hurt workers, both in this country and internationally, whether it is the Singapore-Chile agreement coming up or whether it is the fast track authority that this Congress I think wrongly gave the President fairly recently.

I also support the efforts of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) from Houston in terms of serving all the Nation, including rural areas. I think that our ability to deliver all kinds of health care, all kinds of public health care, especially in rural areas and urban areas alike, is especially important.

And I want to reiterate from my opening comments, Mr. Speaker, that while Bioshield is so very, very, very important and it gives us great opportunity to further develop our public health system, it is important that we keep in mind our long-standing, day-to-day public health system.

Bioshield can serve some synergism with the public health system as long as we keep focussed on the Centers for Disease Control, as long as we keep focused on local public health departments, because that has served the public very well, this public health system. It is too often starved, too often woefully, inadequately funded. I would hope that the synergism we can create with Bioshield and with public health will serve this country well, both in terms of deterring as an antidote and as a deterrence for bioterrorism attacks and in terms of the day-to-day issue of public health, whether it is lead-based paints, whether it is eliminating the discrepancy between rich and poor and the health care they get, whether it is providing safe drinking water and clean air and all the things that public health provide to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I am willing to yield back if the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time I have, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Government Reform, and how much time the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield my remaining 24\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) with permission that he be allowed to yield said time.

Mr. Speaker, I will not consume the entire 50 minutes.

Many Members of Congress are receiving hundreds of letters each and aggregately tens of thousands of letters questioning this Congress' refusal to get to the bottom of the misinformation campaign on Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have signed an on-line petition which states that Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Unfortunately, the leadership in this House, the Republican leadership in this body, has refused to allow serious debate on this misinformation campaign, has refused to appoint an independent commission, has refused even to hold congressional hearings on what did the President tell the American people, were the reasons that he stated to the American people justifiable, were they truthful, and/or were they misleading to the American public and as reasons given for the attack on Iraq.

As I think about it, I look at American history and I think of another time when Members of Congress were not given the opportunity to debate a major national issue that affected national security, that affected the way of life of so many Americans, that affected issues of justice. Think back to more than 150 years ago when John Quincy Adams, a former president who came back to this body after he was President, and in those days, in the 1830s and 1840s, this Congress, with a very conservative leadership, actually passed a rule to prohibit the discussion or the debate of the issue of slavery in the House of Representatives. So in the halls of Congress, slavery, one of the great shames of this country, slavery was not even allowed to be discussed on the floor because of the ruling of the legislative leadership in those days.

Today, Members of Congress have been precluded in any kind of legislative vehicle, any kind of investigation from debating this issue of the administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps the President did nothing wrong, perhaps he did, but we have not really been able to debate that here.

So what John Quincy Adams did in the 1830s and 1840s was collect letters from his constituents, he called them petitions, and he read those petitions, those letters on the House floor. In other words, he let the people of the United States speak for themselves, using his voice. He was the megaphone to allow them to speak.

Many Members of Congress the last two nights, and we will continue in the nights ahead, are doing the same thing. They are taking many of these letters that we have received, people who have signed a petition saying Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, and simply read those letters and allowed people to speak directly. It really is a night, as it was last night and the night before, for the people to take over the People's House, and Members of Congress, who are elected by 630,000 people, as all of us are, simply the mouthpiece for these constituents.

I would just like to share for 5 or 10 minutes, Mr. Speaker, some of these letters.

Jeff Hutchinson from Cincinnati, Ohio, wrote:

As a proud citizen of the United States of America, I am deeply concerned about the recent turn of events involving our Nation's foreign policy and our military invasion of Iraq. I have no doubt that the previous regime in Iraq was like many other contemporary governments, corrupt, violent, inhumane. I am concerned about the credibility of the United States before the international community if it is determined that this Nation enters into war based on uncertain evidence.

That was Mr. Hutchinson of Cincinnati. Those are his words, not mine, as all of these will be the words of constituents.

Thomas Gentry, Sr., Akron, Ohio, in my congressional district, wrote, ``A president and his administration must be truthful about dangers in our country. Please help form an independent commission to investigate the cloud hanging over the Bush administration for the apparent lying that took place to justify going to war with Iraq. Thank you.''

Celine Riedel, from Avon Lake, Ohio. She writes, ``Democrats should not be alone in demanding an open, full-scale investigation into the intelligence that helped plummet us into a preemptive war with Iraq. Republican Members of Congress should also be clamoring for the truth. If the American people were presented with a Gordian knot of deception, then now is the time for that knot to be untied.''

Natalie Sydorenko, from Akron, Ohio, wrote, ``No one is above the law or investigation. The truth will come

out one way or another,'' she writes. ``Those who discourage uncovering the truth will appear just as deceptive as those hiding it. Please think about it.'' Natalie Sydorenko, from Akron, Ohio.

From Columbus, Ohio, Jason Bennett writes, ``I am appalled at the apparent lack of concern in Congress at the bold deceptions carried out by the administration in its arguments for the war on Iraq. It has been clear for months to anyone paying attention that the claims regarding Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger were completely baseless. I am afraid this is only the most notorious in a litany of half-truths by which we have been lead to war on and occupation of Iraq. We owe it to the boys who are dying in Iraq to get the truth behind the President's claims,'' Mr. Bennett writes.

Mark Duckwall of Yellow Springs, southwest Ohio, writes, ``It is apparent the Bush administration creatively expanded the real threat from Iraq. We are now mired in a mess that will take years, billions of dollars, and more American lives to get out of. Please show the world that we hold our leaders accountable and are a peace-loving country,'' writes Mr. Duckwall.

Mr. Brad Steinmetz of Columbus, in central Ohio, the State capital, writes, ``The absence of an independent investigation into the serious questions surrounding the basis for our involvement in Iraq gives the impression that this administration has something to hide. It is as important for President Bush to earn the trust of the American people as it is for America to earn the trust of the people of the world,'' Mr. Steinmetz writes.

Diane Ciekaway, from Athens, Ohio, the district of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), writes, ``I feel the American people should hold their leaders to high standards of accountability. This is what we teach in our universities in our Nation and what I teach my students,'' she writes. ``Whatever the results of the inquiry, it will benefit the American public to understand how information is collected and how it is used to support U.S. policies.''

Abbey Steele, from Avon, Ohio, just down the street from where I live in Lorraine. Ms. Steele writes, ``Please take President Bush and his administration to task for massive distortion of intelligence. The country was deceived into war in order to advance a hegemonic international agenda that eschews principles of justice for those of `might makes right.' The fact that Bush now refers to those questioning the evidence cited leading to war as `revisionists of history,' '' and those are the President's words as cited by Ms. Steele, ``demonstrates how little this administration credits the American public. We can't let this administration continue to treat the public with such cynicism, either in foreign or domestic politics. Please keep our public officials accountable,'' Ms. Steele writes.

Paul Lubben, from Berea, Ohio, near Cleveland, writes, ``The possibility that the President took us into a war based on false information must be investigated by an independent group. In my opinion, this is a most serious charge,'' Mr. Lubben says.

Ken Harlow of Powell, Ohio, in central Ohio, writes, ``The weapons of mass destruction evidence presented to justify the war in Iraq needs to be fully disclosed and investigated. How will Americans otherwise be ever able to trust their government,'' he asks.

From Ravenna, Ohio, Alan Goldstein writes, ``As you know, I have written many times on the subject of the illegal wars created by the administration over the past couple of years. Now it seems that the media and the general public are finally paying attention to the seriousness of this situation. Now is the time to join your colleagues and to correct the wrongs that have been allowed to happen.''

Last from Dr. Mary Lou Shaw from Southwest Ohio, ``For us to continue to have a democracy, you must fight for the American people to know the truth.''

As I stated earlier, that is a sample of the 2,500 letters that constituents from all over Ohio have written to their Members of Congress. I know there were some 6,000 letters from Illinois, some tens of thousands of letters from California, and many more from across the country, people who are concerned, people who are demanding petitioning, asking this Congress to support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

I hope that leaders in this body will listen to those who are petitioning this Congress, will listen to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of voices in this country who want to know if we were deceived into war and want to get to the bottom of this, to restore the trust in the administration, to restore our trust in the President of the United States, and to restore our trust in the United States Congress, and to restore our trust in our government.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here and share the concerns in their own words from my constituents in northeast Ohio and other constituents around the rest of the great State of Ohio. As the gentlewoman from Illinois said, the previous speaker, this was a petition that was signed by literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans. I have with me tonight letters that accompanied the signing of the petitions, almost 3,000 letters just from Ohio, just one State, almost 3,000 letters alone. The petition said Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. There were hundreds of thousands of signatures and tens of thousands of letters. Let me share some of them from Ohio.

Reverend William Trego of West Jefferson, Ohio said:

``It is shameful that a Nation with the brilliant legacy of the United States would stand before the leaders of the world and present a case supported with distorted and at times outright false information. We were sold a bill of goods.''

From Wadsworth, Ohio, Michael Kovack:

``As a mobilized reservist for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I implore you to create a committee to examine the basis for sending us into harm's way. We must ascertain how this happened and, if error is found, never allow it to happen again.''

Tom Gentry Jr. of Akron, Ohio, in my district said:

``This is a scary time for our country. Never have we been in so much danger of violent attack from without and attacks on our liberty from within.''

From Strongsville, Ohio, David Koch said:

``From the very beginning, the allegations about Iraq sounded too convenient and very fishy. Now it is widely coming to light that the Bush administration grossly exaggerated and fabricated many claims. When I tried to warn people at the beginning, I took the heat from friends and family who shunned me as an idiot. It is time for the truth about the Iraq war to be made known to the American public.''

From Brecksville, Ohio, Aaron Clark wrote:

``The President used lies and half truths to convince the American people to go to war. This is serious and needs to be investigated without delay.''

There are hundreds and hundreds, in Ohio 2,500 letters just like this; in Illinois, the gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned more than twice that number; in California and across the country, literally tens of thousands of letters like this.

From Cincinnati, Ohio, on the other end of the State, Mark Light writes:

``As an elected Representative to your constituents, it is your obligation to back any efforts that will lead our Nation to the truth regarding such important matters. The citizens of this country have every right to know the truth when their lives and resources are at stake. Any actions other than total support of an investigation are essentially efforts to hide the truth from our citizens.''

George Hennigin from Akron, Ohio, in my district said:

``The philosopher Baruch Spinoza once wrote: It has been the one song of those who thirst after absolute power that the interest of the state requires that its affairs should be conducted in secret. But the more such arguments disguise themselves under the mask of public welfare, the more oppressive is the slavery to which they will lead. Better that the right counsels be known to the enemies than the evil secrets of tyrants should be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a nation have it absolutely under their authority; and as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace.''

Roberta Hunter from Columbus, Ohio said:

``The truth has never hurt a democracy. Since there are so many unanswered questions, an investigation will not hurt. It will once and for all end the questions of Americans and of many people around the world.''

From Strongsville, Ohio, Sandy Fronius, a constituent of mine in northeast Ohio, writes:

``I am just a typical middle-aged, middle-class American, and I am deeply concerned about the possibility that the young men and women of our Armed Forces were sent into danger for no good reason. If we were lied to, I believe Mr. Bush should be relieved of his office.''

Jerry Lowe from Cincinnati:

``If you as my Congressman have nothing to hide, if the Republican Party has nothing to hide, if the Bush administration has nothing to hide, then I urge you to join the crusade for truth to which all public servants should subscribe. Your constituents are watching. Restore the faith of Ohioans and Americans in the dedication of our elected officials to seek the truth and serve our country with integrity.''

There are literally hundreds of more of these in Ohio, thousands, tens of thousands more of these around the country. I think people are very concerned and want to see Congress pay attention to what really happened.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding me the time.

Madam Chairman, this body passed a resolution on June 10 recognizing two major advances in public health: the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, and the completion of the Human Genome Project. Good congratulatory words in this Congress, but as usual from around here, nothing to back it up.

The bill we are considering today provides funding for NIH barely sufficient to support existing research projects, much less any ground- breaking new research into avenues like gene therapy.

In a recent survey, taxpayers were asked what the Federal Government's major priorities should be. Public education, first. The public said medical research, second. Yet today we are considering a bill that underfunds both education and medical research.

Whom does Republican leadership report to? It is certainly not the American public. The bill's authors argued that this Congress has other priorities. It has chosen tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country instead of research for cancer and Alzheimer's and ALS and MS and spinal cord injury. It has chosen to give a millionaire a tax cut of $93,000 instead of spending the money where Americans want it spent, on basic medical research.

The bill provides an increase today of only 2.5 percent for NIH, the smallest percentage increase in 18 years, in a sharp drop from what we have been doing the last several years. NIH estimates its spending on cancer research would only rise 3.7 percent, short of the 4.7 percent just necessary to stay even on what we are doing with cancer research. The number of grants for new research projects and renewals would increase by just two-tenths of 1 percent.

Is that what the American public asks for when it says its top two priorities are spending money on public education and spending money on medical research?

Madam Chairman, vote against this bill. Unfortunately, medical research seems to be an afterthought in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year President Bush addressed a Michigan audience laying out his plans to restructure Medicare. He said, ``If it's good enough for Members of Congress, it's good enough for seniors in this Nation.'' What he meant was that American seniors who enroll in Medicare should have health insurance choices like those available to Members of Congress under the health insurance plan called the Federal employees health benefits plan. President Bush was not the only one to say so. Republican leaders in the House made the same point. All of us have heard colleagues here say that. That message, that seniors should have the same kind of health insurance choices available to Members of Congress, was an important selling point for the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill.

That message is absolutely right. The problem is that the Republican bill is absolutely the opposite. The Republican Medicare bill, H.R. 1, does not even come close to giving seniors the kind of coverage that Members of Congress have provided for themselves. The Congressional Research Service says the FEHBP plan which Members of Congress are in offers a drug benefit worth $2,700, but the same CRS, Congressional Research Service, nonpartisan arm of the Congress said the Republican Medicare bill is worth only about half of that. The Republican Medicare bill does not offer American seniors health care choices just like Members of Congress even though the President said it did. It does not even come close.

Even a basic comparison shows how the Republican bill comes up woefully short. The Republican bill tells seniors they have to pay a $250 deductible. Members of Congress do not pay a deductible. The Republican bill requires seniors with drug costs over $2,000 to continue paying monthly premiums even though they do not get any coverage until they spend an additional $2,900 out of pocket. Members of Congress do not make premium payments and get nothing in return. The Republican Medicare bill does not offer American seniors health care choices just like Members of Congress. It does not even come close.

The Washington Post said the drug benefit proposed by the Republicans for seniors provides merely a fraction of the drug coverage that Members of Congress receive. The chairman of the health policy department at Emory University said that drug benefits are much better in the congressional Federal employees plan. Still do not believe the Republican bill offers a bad deal for American seniors? You have to look no farther than H.R. 2631 on today's suspension calendar. H.R. 2631 says that private insurance plans under

the Federal employees health benefit plan must agree to provide drug coverage for Federal retirees actuarially equivalent to the drug coverage they provide to current Federal employees. In other words, what that means is that when Members of Congress and other Federal employees retire, they will not be forced to go into H.R. 1, into the Republican Medicare bill. It is good for Members of Congress, it is good for Federal employees, because the Republican Medicare drug benefit would be a step down for them. Remember what the President said: If it is good enough for Members of Congress, it is good enough for seniors in this Nation. That is what he says about the Republican bill.

It would be a big step down to go into the Republican privatized drug benefit plan for the 13 million American private sector retirees who get drug coverage through their employers' health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office said that more than one-third of all seniors who are in private retirement plans will see their plans dropped by their employer. They will be forced out of the private coverage they have today, forced out of that plan and put into the inferior Republican Medicare prescription drug plan.

H.R. 2631 says Members of Congress should not have to live under the same system that the Republican Medicare plan foists on the American public. Should we pass H.R. 2631 today? Absolutely, because 8.5 million Federal employees should not have to live with the Republican Medicare bill's drug benefit. But given that the Republican Medicare bill's drug benefit is so bad that Congress, after passing it 2 weeks ago, today is exempting themselves, get that again, the Republican Medicare bill is so bad from 2 weeks ago that passed here that today Congress is exempting itself from that plan so that Members of Congress can continue to enjoy good health coverage, not the inferior plan that President Bush and Republicans are foisting on Congress.

We should pass H.R. 2631 today and we should throw H.R. 1 in the shredder and get to work on a real prescription drug benefit for American seniors. And the President when he says, ``If it's good enough for Congress, it's good enough for seniors in this Nation,'' the President should mean what he says.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2631, but I am just puzzled by this. I guess I must be missing something. This bill concerns the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Members of Congress and others. Right now the plans offer drug coverage for retired Members of Congress and other Federal employees equal to the drug coverage these plans offer current employees. This bill puts this policy in law, requiring drug coverage for Federal employees must be equal to coverage for current employees.

This bill was introduced the day the House passed the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill. It is clear that this bill is meant to ensure that Members of Congress, this is where I am puzzled, Members of Congress do not have to live under the Republican Medicare privatization plan. That is why I am puzzled. If it is good enough for Congress, it is good enough for seniors of this Nation. That is what President Bush said in Michigan in January about H.R. 1, his Medicare prescription drug plan.

In his statement of administrative policy on H.R. 1, the White House praised the Republican drug plan saying it was just like the coverage that Members of Congress get. That is where I am getting stuck, trying to figure out why the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has brought this bill to the floor. If the Republican Medicare bill offers drug coverage just like Members of Congress have and as President Bush says, then why do we have to protect Members of Congress and Federal employees from being forced into the Republican privatized Medicare plan? I just do not get it.

The majority leader of the other body who runs that place and the leader on this side, both said the Medicare Republican bills would accomplish the goal of giving health care security to seniors. But if the Republican drug plan provides real health care security, H.R. 1, why do we have to exempt Members of Congress and other Federal employees from the bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and other Republicans rammed through this Congress recently?

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said the Republican drug plan uses private plans to compete to provide beneficiaries better care at lower costs. It is confusing. Why do we need this plan when Congress is exempting itself from what Congress did only 2 weeks ago? I hope that my friends on the other side would explain that.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my friend sits on the Committee on Energy and Commerce where this bill was heard. I just heard over and over people saying that we wanted to give, under the Republican drug plan that passed 2 weeks ago by one vote, that we wanted to give the same coverage to seniors as FEHBPs. Are you saying then that the coverage for Federal retirees is significantly better than the coverage that you are providing or that this House provided under H.R. 1, the Republican Medicare prescription drug plan?