Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who has worked so hard on this bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), my friend, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for their hard work on this bill, as well as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), with whom we have worked so well. Every day these specially trained staff of pharmacists and nurses at poison control centers across the country field calls from frantic parents concerned that their child ingested a poisonous substance. They field calls from an elderly couple with questions about whether one medication might cause an adverse reaction if taken with another; and as the events of September 11 and the cases of anthrax have shown us, poison control centers field calls from concerned residents uncertain about the danger they have been exposed to. Handling an average of one poison exposure call every 15 seconds across the country, these men and women answer questions about poisonings, about drug abuse, about product contents, about adverse reactions. Legislation we are considering today will enhance the work of poison control centers through improved maintenance of a national toll-free number that is linked to regional poison control centers. This bill will help promote the nationwide media campaign to promote poison control center utilization. If a person has a problem, they need to know whom to call and they need to know the number, and they need to know that they are reliable. Every parent, every baby-sitter, every coworker, every household, and every office should know how to contact the poison control center closest to them. This bill from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) will help develop standardized prevention and poison control centers and will improve national surveillance of toxic exposures. It will improve the collection of data to help detect new hazards, including those found in our homes. Mr. Speaker, every year roughly 120 children under 14 needlessly die from unintentional poisoning, 120 children under the age of 14. The bill we are considering today can save the lives of many of them. It is an important step towards reversing that trend and saving more children from poison exposure. I urge my colleagues to support S. 686. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who has been an absolute leader with a great understanding on these very complicated drug issues.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), one of the authors of this legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for their leadership on the important issue of prescription drug research for children. The legislation we consider today is in large part the product of their hard work and their good work. The FDA requires drug manufacturers to verify the safety and effectiveness of a new medicine before it can be sold in our country. But because most research has been done on adults, new medicines that are safe and effective in grownups may not be safe and effective when used in children. That is why we enacted legislation rewarding safety and efficacy testing that focuses on children. Drug companies that voluntarily conduct this testing are granted what amounts to a patent extension on the pediatric use of their medicines. Though progress has been made, an article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that fully 60 percent of drugs coming to the market remain unstudied and unlabeled for use in children. FDA's Pediatric Rule addressed that concern, but a Federal judge struck it down last year because, according to those judges, the agency lacked sufficient statutory authority. The legislation today before us corrects that deficiency and codifies the Pediatric Rule. S. 650 requires pediatric testing as a condition of new drug approval every time. It authorizes responsible exceptions, though, deferrals and waivers when these actions would be determined to serve the interests of patients. This approach will ensure that most medicines are testified for safety and effectiveness in children before they hit the market. It gives the FDA the flexibility to move drugs to market when testing is unwarranted or impossible or would hold up a drug important for adult patients. I have, Mr. Speaker, one important concern with this otherwise laudable legislation. It relates to a controversial provision added by the other body which terminates the testing requirement when the pediatric marketing exclusivity provision expires. There is no policy justification for this change. If it is responsible to require pediatric testing today, it will be no less responsible to do so after the government subsidy for pediatric testing has expired. America's children, pure and simple, are not served by this language. The only ones who benefit again are drugmakers. It has been a really good week for drugmakers in this country. As good as this bill is, they get a benefit they do not deserve. They also get a benefit later in the week if this House passes the Medicare bill to the tune of about $140 billion more in profits on a bill that, frankly, they and the Republican majority and President Bush sat down and wrote to help the drug industry and the insurance industry. This provision in our bill is objectionable on procedural grounds, also. The other body acted months ago, but the Committee on Energy and Commerce did not schedule a markup that would have permitted us to debate and vote on the sunset provision and consider related issues important especially to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and to other Members. I hope this process will not become the model for health legislation in this House. Having said that, the bill is an important step forward in children's health. America's leading children's health advocates also strongly support the Pediatric Rule. The American Academy of Pediatrics called it an essential tool. The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation said it will safeguard children by taking the guesswork out of children's medicine. I hope Members will join me in voting to send the Pediatric Research Equity Act to the White House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, colored and patterned contact lenses can be a fun way to express one's sense of style. Noncorrective contact lenses that are manufactured responsibly and worn under the supervision of a qualified eye care professional are useful and a perfectly safe commodity. For years, the FDA saw it that way too and properly classified colored contact lenses as medical devices. In fact, just over a year ago FDA issued an official notification noting that noncorrective contacts ``present significant risks of blindness and other eye injury if distributed without the involvement of a qualified eye professional.'' But in April, for whatever reason, and we have seen an FDA that has become more and more politicized in the last couple of years, but for some reason the FDA flip-flopped deciding that colored contact lenses were not medical devices and were instead cosmetics. This quiet, but important, policy change opened the door to a new public health threat. By reclassifying colored contacts as cosmetics, FDA eliminated the requirement that these products be manufactured to exacting standards, that they be FDA approved for safety before marketing, and that they be labeled with directions for safe use. FDA has expressed concern about the safety of noncorrective lenses administered without a doctor's involvement. But FDA's decision to reclassify them in this increasingly politicized FDA, this decision to reclassify them eliminated its authority to require that very involvement. Despite concerns raised by Members in the House, but more importantly by Prevent Blindness Ohio and other eye health advocates, FDA went ahead with this misguided plan. This bill corrects that mistake by statutorily reclassifying noncorrective contacts as medical devices by statute. This bill was carefully drafted to ensure that this would be its only effect, and it clearly states this change will have no limiting effect on FDA's discretion in classifying other products under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. H.R. 2218 enjoys bipartisan support in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and I have cosponsored this legislation, as have several other colleagues; and I am joined on the floor today by two other leading health advocates, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation in protecting the vision and health of American consumers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for her leadership on health care issues and for her advocacy on behalf of seniors, especially in Nevada, and around the country. Mr. Speaker, I normally when speaking on the House floor do not quote from a television show, but I would like to start this evening with several of my colleagues. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and maybe some others, maybe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) are going to speak on this too. I am quoting from Al Hunt on ``Capital Gang.'' If you have seen that show, those people watching, you know he does something called the ``Outrage of the Week.'' He says: ``Now for the outrages of the week. The American Association of Retired Persons, the largest lobby for the elderly, is on the verge of selling out many seniors on the Medicare bill.'' This is a commentator saying this, not me. ``The legislation as it now stands would deny 4 million retirees coverage they currently get, would give sweeping new powers to HMOs over the traditional one for Medicare,'' basically a $12 billion pay-off to the insurance companies, ``and would gut a measure approved by both Houses to facilitate importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada,'' from countries that charge two and three and four times what the drug companies do in this country. ``The AARP Washington lobbyists apparently care more about their own influence than what they can do for struggling seniors.'' Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised by this. Let me share some comments, some articles written about AARP which most of us in Washington know is one of the largest insurance companies in the country. In Newsday 3 years ago, ``Critics say AARP, which formally unveiled its new headquarters building in downtown Washington last month, has softened its earlier militancy because it is preoccupied with its profit-making enterprise, including $100 million in earnings from the sale of insurance.'' The Denver Post wrote not too long ago, ``AARP receives more than $100 million in revenue from health insurers.'' Newsday wrote, ``Critics suggest that AARP's substantial profits from the sales of insurance policies, drug company advertising,''--no surprise there either considering they sold out to the drug industry on this one,--``drug company advertising in its magazines, and investment schemes conflict with its interests on behalf of seniors. AARP President William Novelli acknowledged complaints from members that AARP has been too timid in the political battles to defend Medicare and Social Security. He conceded that AARP has pulled its punches since right-wing groups and Members of Congress criticized it.'' Capital News Service wrote, ``AARP's pharmacy service,''--its connection to the drug industry, think about that,--``is part of its insurance sales operation which generated $101 million in revenue last year, 17 percent of the organization's total budget.'' No wonder they are there for this bill that enhances the profits of the drug industry, $150 billion it enhances their profits and gives a $12 billion blank check to the HMOs in this country. Milwaukee Journal says, ``AARP receives millions of dollars from UnitedHealthcare, a national health insurance firm based in Minnesota.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last minute or two before yielding to my friends, I want to mention that Mr. Novelli, who is the head of AARP, who did the negotiations, these tough-minded negotiations with the drug companies and the insurance companies, Mr. Novelli wrote the preface to Newt Gingrich's book on how to reform Medicare. Newt Gingrich is the guy that first thing after Medicare passed in 1965, only 12 Republicans voted for it. Bob Dole voted no. Donald Rumsfeld voted no. Strom Thurmond voted no. All kinds of Republicans voted no. In those days, Republicans did not like Medicare. They say they do now, but then Newt Gingrich, when the Republicans finally took control of the House in 1995, the first thing Newt Gingrich did was cut $250 billion from Medicare to do what? Guess. To pay for a tax cut for the richest people in the country. Same old story. Mr. Novelli has decided he is buying in. The head of AARP writes the preface to Newt Gingrich's book on how to privatize Medicare, the same Newt Gingrich that said: If I have my way, Medicare's going to wither on the vine. The same Newt Gingrich that said that. Mr. Novelli writes, ``Newt's ideas,'' and they are on a first-name basis obviously as much time as they spent together trying to dismantle Medicare, ``Newt's ideas are influencing how we at AARP are thinking about our national role in health promotion and disease prevention and in our advocating for system change.'' If only his 40 million members knew that he was in league with Newt Gingrich to try to privatize Medicare; that he, Mr. Novelli, was in league with the drug industry which will gain $150 billion, billion with a B, that is twice what we are spending in Iraq, $150 billion to the drug industry and a $12 billion insurance payout to the insurance companies. That is like 1,000 times more than Halliburton is still paying Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States. These things are pretty incredible, Mr. Speaker, when we think about the money that AARP is going to make from this bill. They are going to get in line behind the drug companies and the insurance companies with their hand out.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, America does need an energy policy, but not this one. This policy started with bad process as Vice President Cheney himself, a former oil man, actually still on the payroll at $3,000 a week of an oil company, Halliburton, when Vice President Cheney convened a secret group of energy lobbyists to draft the administration's energy plan. It ended with bad process as the conference committee met last night for only the second time, and then only to take a series of party line votes and rubber stamp this bill. When we use bad process, we usually get bad product. That is why our colleague in the other body, John McCain, a Republican, called this conference report a ``no lobbyist left behind bill.'' This was a great week for lobbyists. Like the Medicare bill we will debate later this week, which throws uncounted taxpayer dollars at prescription drug companies and insurance companies, this energy bill is an early present, an early Christmas present for the oil, gas, and utility lobbyists. Mr. Speaker, $100 billion in all, according to some estimates. These special interest giveaways line the pockets of this Chamber's most influential lobbyists. They do so at the expense of clean air, at the expense of safe drinking water, at the expense of public health and public safety. One small, but telling, example is a last-minute addition by the other body that benefits a single New Mexico company. That company wants to build a uranium enrichment plant, and this bill exempts that plant from the customary review of the National Environmental Policy Act. Special interests favors, Mr. Speaker, and environmental rollbacks are not the way to make energy policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America needs an energy policy, but not this one. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this summer AARP devised a litmus test for Medicare legislation. Specifically, AARP said Congress must be careful not to pass any legislation that jeopardizes employer-sponsored retiree benefits, or that leaves such large gaps in the drug coverage that seniors still will not be able to afford needed medicines, or that includes a premium support privatization provision which will invariably give HMOs control over Medicare, or undercuts popular support for the Medicare program by requiring higher-income beneficiaries to pay more for the same coverage. In other words, we should not pass any legislation that introduces means testing into Medicare. The Medicare conference committee agreement that was outlined this weekend still jeopardizes employer-sponsored retiree coverage for 12 million seniors. In other words, as many as a third of the seniors who now have prescription drug coverage will lose it under this bill because employers will say why should we do it, we will put you in that government program. It still leaves such huge gaps in coverage the average senior will run out of drug benefits by August each year. Understand that the average senior will run out of drug benefits two-thirds of the way through the year, but, get this, will still be required to pay the premiums through December. That is a great deal. It still includes a premium support provision that stacks the deck so resolutely against Medicare fee-for-service, the Medicare that seniors in this country respect and love and have benefited so greatly from. It stacks the deck so resolutely against the Medicare fee-for-service program that seniors will have no choice but to join a private insurance HMO. And it still means tests seniors. What else does this bill do? It creates a $12 billion slush fund for HMOs to induce them to provide coverage. If anyone still believes privatizing Medicare will reduce health care costs, this $12 billion bribe going to the insurance industry from U.S. taxpayers, this $12 billion bribe should cure them of that misperception. Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise here. After all, the insurance industry gives tens of billions of dollars to my friends on the other side of the aisle, to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to Republican legislative leadership. This bill also increases drug profits by nearly 40 percent, an estimated $139 billion over 8 years. Again, no surprise there, Mr. Speaker. The drug industry gives actually tens and tens of billions of dollars to President Bush. The word on the street in Washington is they may give $100 million to President Bush's reelection. So, of course, they are going to look out for the drug industry. Coincidentally, this bill specifically prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating lower prices on behalf of seniors and taxpayers to secure lower drug prices. It abandons the one strategy that would deliver meaningful drug savings to seniors, businesses, and all prescription drug purchasers. It abandons legislation that my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is in this Chamber, worked on; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone); the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a lot of us on both sides of the aisle worked on. It abandons legislation to allow importation of prescription drugs, safe, affordable prescription drugs from Canada and other countries that charge one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth as much as they do in the United States. Other countries negotiate for lower drug prices, but the U.S. is a passive drug taker. As a result, U.S. consumers get robbed; the drug industry gets rich. This bill ignores public support for prescription drug reimportation from other countries for lower price, the same drug but for lower price, ignores the consequences for consumers, for employers, and for the Federal Treasury if we fail to bring drug prices down. Seniors cannot afford the high cost, employers cannot afford the high cost, taxpayers cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs anymore in this country. If anyone still believes the drug industry and the insurance industry are not the ghost writers of this bill and are not its principal beneficiaries, perhaps the $12 billion HMO slush fund, the $139 billion in additional drug industry profits, the prohibition on negotiated drug prices, and the stifling of prescription drug importation just might convince you. One more thing. While the drug and insurance industries fair extremely well under this legislation, the bill's authors decided to cut corners by barring 3.9 million seniors living at or near poverty from receiving low-income prescription drug assistance. Under the deal described this weekend, a senior earning $8,000 a year may still be required to pay as much as $2,500 to $3,500 for coverage. That is not protection, Mr. Speaker. It is a cruel joke.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his good work as a freshman in really stepping up and learning health care issues and fighting for the right causes in health care and protecting Medicare. I would not expect the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) to know what his counterparts in the Committee on Energy and Commerce did. He is a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. But when he stands here and says that we just want to give to seniors what Members of Congress already get, he should know that the Committee on Energy and Commerce had an amendment, the Democrats in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, saying that every senior should get a plan at least as good as Members of Congress get, and it was voted down in a party-line vote. It was not the first time we had tried that. We had tried it other years. We will continue to try it. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) should remember that soon after the Medicare bill passed in the middle of the night, as all controversial bills pass in this body, by one vote, as almost all of them pass, and after Republicans surrounded a couple of Members on the House floor in the middle of the night, and convinced a couple of Republicans to switch their votes so they could get their bill through by one vote, he should remember a couple days after that, I believe the next week, that a Republican Congressman from, I believe, Virginia had legislation that said that we will not bring Members of Congress and Federal employees down to the level of the Republican Medicare plan. It was to protect those Federal employees, also protecting Members of Congress, but to protect them so they did not get a plan with this huge doughnut hole, this huge gap in coverage, with lots of out-of-pocket costs. My Republican friends did not want that plan for Federal employees and, I might add, for themselves. This is the same Republican Congress where almost 200 Members of Congress voted for a pay raise for themselves and then a couple of months later voted against a $1,500 pay increase for our servicemen and women of Iraq, just to bring another issue which sort of hits home with a whole lot of us. The fact is that Medicare works, Medicare is rock solid, it is equitable, it is dependable, it is flexible, it is cost-efficient, it serves America's seniors so very well. President Bush, when he unveiled his prescription drug plan, he said, If you want prescription drug coverage, Mr. and Mrs. Senior in this country, you have got to leave Medicare and go into a private HMO. Then he realized that did not sound too good. Even the privatizers on the other side of the aisle who want to turn Medicare over to the insurance industry, even they realized that was not going to work in an election year; so they backed off that plan. But the fact is that H.R. 1 abandons Medicare as we know it, trades it in for a multi-health plan system we already know does not work, privatizes the system, turns it over to HMOs. That is why the Cardoza motion to instruct is so very important. That is why Members should support it if they like Medicare the way it is. But under their plan without the Cardoza motion to instruct, Medicare ends in 7 years. It is a bad idea. Support the Cardoza motion to instruct.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, with Veteran's Day nearing, I am ashamed, frankly, of how little this House of Representatives has done for the men and women who have served our country. There has been lots of talk, good talk, especially in the early days of November, but not much real action. In honor of our veterans, the men and women who are risking their lives today, tonight, and tomorrow in Iraq and Afghanistan, the many who have lost and continue to lose their good health and even their lives, our message should reflect our admiration for their commitment. It does not. In July, House Republican leadership, through a procedural maneuver, struck down an attempt to restore $1.8 billion, just to restore $1.8 billion in veterans health care funding when they forced the House to vote on a bill with inadequate funding for veterans' health. Democrats and veterans' groups opposed the bill and demanded that the Republican leadership restore funding to the Veterans Administration. Now, it appears the VA-HUD appropriations bill will come out of conference $500 million short of the VA funding level that we demanded and the Republicans promised in their budget resolution. What kind of Veteran's Day message is that sending? In light of the inadequacy of the majority's VA spending bill, Democrats fought for consideration of other solutions that would make up for those shortfalls that Republicans offered. Over 200 Democrats signed a discharge petition offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) that would force the House to consider legislation to eliminate the discriminatory disabled veterans tax. Responding, finally, to this pressure, Republican leaders offered a proposal that would only reach 50 percent of those veterans unfairly affected by this tax. Because this proposal would be phased in over 10 years, reduction of the tax would be very small in the early years of the proposal and veterans would not even receive their full benefits. This is the best Republicans could offer: Veterans would not receive their full benefits until 2014, 11 years away. This so-called solution pits one group of veterans against another group of veterans, hardly something we should do any time, but especially something we should not do in wartime. That is some message. Democrats have offered a legislative package that does the right thing. Our proposal increases veterans' health care over the next 10 years by $10 billion. It would end the disabled veterans' tax and pay veterans $500 a month if their disability claim has been left pending for longer than 6 months. It would give $1,000 bonuses for those soldiers returning home from Iraq and from Afghanistan. It would make military pay increases permanent for those in imminent danger and away from their families. The Republicans have offered so much less; in fact, they have taken away. As soon as President Bush took office, he raised the copay at veterans' clinics across the country by 350 percent, from $2 to $7 per veteran per prescription drug per month. He has since proposed to raise that to $15, from $2 to $7 to $15; in effect, slashing the drug benefit that veterans have deservedly gotten in this country. The President and Republicans have also cut education benefits. Why are they cutting education benefits to veterans? Why are they cutting prescription drug benefits to veterans? The answer is simple. It is to make room for the Republican tax cut. The tax cut, everyone knows that by now, the tax cut, that if you are a millionaire you get $93,000 tax savings. Half of the people in my district in Ohio, northeast Ohio, in Akron and Lorain, Northridge, half of them get zero. Half the people in my State get zero while the ``leave no millionaire behind'' tax cut from the President goes forward, making it not just unfair in terms of the taxes that the wealthy get benefits from in a tax cut, and the middle class and working families do not, but also that is why he has cut veterans benefits, that is why the President has cut education benefits. This was all topped off, Mr. Speaker, by the actions early this fall where almost 200 Members of Congress on the Republican side voted for a $3,500, in fact, pay increase for themselves and voted against a $1,500 pay increase for our troops overseas. That is the height of hypocrisy. We do tax cuts for millionaires, we do pay increases for ourselves, then we turn around, my friends on the other side of the aisle, and do not vote for a pay increase for our young men and women in uniform. Our young men and women were sent to Iraq on the promise that when they returned to this country, this country would care for them. Unless the Republican majority considers proposals that fully meet the needs of veterans, as my colleagues and I have tried to do, they are breaking that covenant.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that my friend from California (Mrs. Capps) does on all kinds of Medicare issues, from what she has done today with the nursing shortage to intercity hospitals and everything in between. I also support and appreciate the good work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) has done on a whole host of Medicare issues, and I know from working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) of his personal support for Medicare, his belief in Medicare. Unfortunately, though, the beliefs of my friend on the other side of the aisle does not always play out in support for Medicare by some other members of the Republican conference. I remember hearing the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of Ways and Means, the principal player on this conference committee that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) talked about, more than 50 percent of American people, Senate and House, are simply not allowed in the House. More than 50 percent of the Senate, 48 percent of the people represented by House Members, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has said he wants to end Medicare as we know it. All we have got to do really is look back on the history of this program, and while the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) does indeed care about Medicare, wants to continue to make it work, wants to preserve it, so many of his fellow Members, including people in the White House, simply do not. The President, some months ago, said that he wants to do a prescription drug benefit, but he said if you want a prescription drug benefit, you have got to get out of Medicare, and you have got to let the insurance industry do it. That has really been the thrust from President Bush to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to Speaker Gingrich a few years ago, to back in 1965, Republicans really wanted this system turned over to the insurance companies. Privatize Medicare and give it to the insurance industry. Go back to 1965, out of roughly 200 Republican Members of the House and Senate, only 23 voted for the creation of Medicare. Gerald Ford in 1965, a future President, voted against it. Congressman Dole, future Senator Dole, Republican Presidential candidate, voted against it. Senator Strom Thurmond voted against the creation of Medicare. Congressman Donald Rumsfeld in 1965, later Secretary of Defense and the architect of this plan, I put in quotation marks, of the rebuilding of Iraq, voted against this creation of Medicare. Then in 1995, the first time Republicans had an opportunity to do something about Medicare, the Republicans under Speaker Gingrich tried to cut it by $270 billion in order to give a tax cut to the most privileged Americans, the same old story. Speaker Gingrich said in October 1995 that he hoped Medicare would wither on the vine. Senator Dole in October 1995 said, that I was in there fighting against the creation of Medicare because we did not believe in it. The next year he was a Republican candidate for President. Dick Armey, sometime later, said about Medicare, in a free capitalist country, we would not have a socialist program like Medicare. And a Republican Congressman from Georgia recently said, I heard in the Committee on Rules, said that Medicare is a Soviet-style program. They are free to think what they want about Medicare, and the more power to them. If they do not like Medicare, that is their business, but do not come on the floor like so many Republicans have, and I accept the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) because he believes in this program, but so many Republicans come to the floor and say I believe in Medicare. I have a mother and father, and I care about them, and I care about Medicare. Sure, they care about their mother and father, but they simply do not much like Medicare. They want to privatize it and end it as we know it. They want to turn it over to the insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, that is why the motion to instruct by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is so important to send a message to the conference committee and to send a message to the American people that Medicare works and we do not want it turned over to the private insurance industry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra). And I just listened to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is going to speak later. I was reminded, as I see what this House has continued to do, to deny the child tax credit to the working families, to the families who have children, but families who are working families, I thought a lot about a meeting I had about a month ago in Akron in my district, where I met with 25 families who had loved ones, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, nieces, nephews, whatever in Iraq. We talked a lot about shared sacrifice. And I heard a lot from the President about sacrifice and shared sacrifices in this country. When you look at it with this war in Iraq tied to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) is trying to do tonight, to help those children in working families who are not making a lot of money, but in working families get some piece of the pie, you realize that this shared sacrifice that the President is asking about is a very limited shared sacrifice. The sacrifice in this country, it is not in the ``leave no millionaires behind'' program. They are getting $93,000 back in their taxes. The people making sacrifices in this country are the service men and women in Iraq; the families of the service men and women in Iraq; the veterans who are getting their veterans benefits, education and health care benefits cut because of the leave no millionaires behind program that George Bush has implemented; the students who are not getting the education funding; the seniors who are not getting the prescription drug benefit they should have; and now, ultimately, children in working-class families whose families are making 10 or 15 or $20,000. Those are the people who, unfortunately, are sacrificing in this shared sacrifice program of the President. So we are subscribing to the leave no millionaire behind program where the average millionaire gets about $93,000 back in their taxes. Half of my constituents, half of Ohioans get zero back in their taxes. These children of working families who are not making a lot of money get zero. So when I hear the President talk about sacrifice, the men and women in Iraq, the families of the men and women in Iraq who are dealing with the anguish and their anxiety of having their loved ones in Iraq and are dealing with budget and financial problems as a result, and especially those children that President Bush just has somehow lost his focus on, makes this motion to instruct from the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) so very, very important. I ask my colleagues to support the Becerra motion to instruct.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, since July I have come to the floor of this House night after night sharing letters from constituents and raising concerns about our policy in Iraq, raising concerns about the administration's failure to supply and to protect the troops, raising concerns about the $1 billion a week, now an increase to $87 billion a year for this Iraq reconstruction effort, raising concerns about the fact that there is no plan from the administration on how to deal with the problems for our troops and how to deal with an exit strategy in Iraq, letters expressing concern about the corruption in our government in Iraq where we are spending $1 billion a week and 30 percent of that $1 billion is going to private contractors, most of them friends of the President, Bechtel, Halliburton, other large corporations, most of them contributors to the President to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and one of them, Halliburton, particular concerns have been raised about from my constituents. Halliburton, the company that the vice President, when he was a private citizen, was CEO of, that company still pays Vice President Cheney $13,000 a month. Tonight, rather than reading letters from constituents, I thought I would read something else that I think is equally interesting. It was from a book that George Bush, Sr., the first President Bush, wrote with Brent Scowcroft in 1998. The name of the book was ``A World Transformed.'' On Page 489, the first President Bush tells us his views about Iraq and what he thought. This is President Bush the first speaking: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam'' Hussein, ``extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in `mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.'' This is President Bush, Sr. writing in 1998: ``Apprehending him,'' Saddam Hussein, ``was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition,'' President Bush wrote in 1998, ``would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances there was no viable `exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish,'' President Bush the first wrote in 1998. ``Had we gone the invasion route, the United States would conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different, and perhaps barren, outcome.'' Those are the words that President Bush, Sr. wrote only 5 years ago, 4 years before his son led an attack on Iraq. Mr. Speaker, those letters from constituents that I have discussed night after night here were particularly compelling, especially some letters I got from the families of men and women who are serving in Iraq. And a couple of weeks ago I met in Akron, the largest city in my district, with 25 families who have loved ones in Iraq; and they talked about our failure, the Bush administration's failure, to support the troops, to supply the troops, to protect the troops: not enough safe drinking water, either bottled water or purification facilities, not enough antibiotics. Soldiers and sailors had to pay for their trips home, pay for their airfare. Some soldiers were actually charged by the hospital, had to pay the hospital for their food when they were recovering. And some soldiers, about one fourth of them, we are told, do not have the body armor which will protect their lives. So on the one hand, these families said to me, our letters from constituents said to me, we have $300 million a week going to private contractors to do work that is not really very well accounted for. On the other hand, we have our soldiers simply not being protected, not enough safe drinking water, not enough body armor, not enough antibiotics. And I would hope that President Bush would have listened to his father, which he clearly did not, from his father's words, but would begin to listen to some of my constituents and other constituents who beg him to focus on protecting and supplying the troops with a little less focus on all these unbid contracts and the corruption that this has brought and the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that we are seeing literally every week in Iraq.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have always believed in free speech in this institution, and I have always thought that we should have free speech throughout the country. I have for the last 4 months come to the House floor and read letters from constituents who often do not have a voice in this body, especially when the conservative leaders of this body so often shut down debate. They shut down debate on the $87 billion for Iraq. They shut down debate on discussing whether the President told the truth about Iraq. They shut down debate on the Halliburton scandals and ineptness of the Bush administration in Iraq. Those same people apparently want to shut down the debate in our country by browbeating CBS and threatening CBS to say we cannot run a documentary on a former President. I do not fully understand that; but Madam Speaker, I would like to share these letters about the concerns my constituents have, similar to what John Quincy Adams had done when the conservative leadership 160 years ago shut down debate in this House on slavery. Madam Speaker, Amanda Harland from Brecksville, Ohio, writes: Congress has allowed too many cuts in America's education, housing, arts funding, jobs training, and other programs that are vital for working families in America. She says: Because of the tax cuts that President Bush and this Congress have given to the wealthiest Americans, every millionaire gets a $93,000 tax cut. Half of my constituents got exactly zero tax cut. She writes: An $87 billion bill is nothing more than an excuse for the opportunity of infinite military occupation and corporate connections. Amanda from Brecksville is obviously referring to the Halliburton scandal, the fact that Halliburton has gotten well over a billion dollars in unbid contracts, Halliburton is a major contributor to the President of the United States, Vice President Cheney is still receiving $13,000 a month from the Halliburton corporation while taxpayers are funneling money to that corporation to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a month. Wesley from Strongsville writes: This administration's go-it-alone policy will not accomplish a long-term secure Iraq, and will only result in a bankrupt American economy and government. If there are sacrifices to be paid, they should be paid now and not by my children when they must pay off the growing deficits from too much spending and not enough revenue. Madam Speaker, I get letters talking about shared sacrifice. The only people that are sacrificing in this war are the soldiers and the sailors, the young men and women in Iraq, and their families, and people who have lost jobs under the Bush economy, while the administration is not sacrificing at all because they have politically gained from giving these huge tax cuts to their friends who have turned around and given major campaign contributions to the Bush administration. Wesley writes: I urge you to work to change the administration's unilateral policy on Iraq and to seek a more equitable manner of funding the transition to include more contributions from other countries, from future Iraq oil revenues, and from tax cut rollbacks for the most privileged people of our society. Jeannie of Akron writes that $87 billion could be spent here for families, for senior citizens, and for college loans that people cannot repay. She says, by the way, we read the people in Washington got a raise. How nice. My husband has not had one in 3 years. What Jeannie is also talking about is that almost 200 Republican Members of Congress voted for a raise for themselves, yet voted against a raise for our troops. A $3,000 raise for themselves, and against a $1,500 raise for our men and women in harm's way. Richard of Valley City writes: They have created a real mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, now they want to take money from the taxpayers to help the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, who will never pay us back. There are so many things we need money for in our country. What about Medicare, Social Security, the space program, and cities and schools who are running a deficit. Madam Speaker, there is a theme in these letters that people are sickened by the ineptness of the Bush administration in Iraq, they are sickened by the corruption of Halliburton and Vice President Cheney and all that is happening in Iraq. They are saddened by the fact that while the administration is so focused on helping Halliburton and Bechtel get richer, they have lost their focus on supplying and providing for the troops. The fact that one-fourth of our troops still do not have enough antibiotics, they do not have safe drinking water, all of the things that the President and Vice President have forgotten to supply and protect our troops, while at the same time they are giving hundreds of millions of unbid dollars in contracts to these largest corporations who are major contributors to the President.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted on rollcall Nos. 591 ``aye''; 592 ``no''; 593 ``aye''.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if I may, may I say the actions of the administration are corrupt and incompetent?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, my friend, and I appreciate hearing the comments from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his night after night work on exposing the kinds of corruption that we have seen in this whole process. We all know about this corruption. We know that we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. We know that $300 million, 30 percent of that $1 billion a week is going to private contractors, most of them friends of the President, most of them major contributors to the President. One of them, Halliburton, used to be the company where the Vice President was CEO and a company that still pays the Vice President $13,000 a month. We know all of that. We know about the corruption. We know about the waste. We know it continues. But what bothers me, what bothers me probably the most about that is what Halliburton and these private contractors are not doing. Last month, early this month, I had a meeting with 25 families in Akron, Ohio, in my district on a Saturday morning. It was going to be about an hour and a half meeting and ended up being over 3 hours, with 25 families who had loved ones in Iraq. What I heard was how our government, and our government, unfortunately, now includes a privatized military worth $300 million out of $1 billion that goes to Halliburton, and our government has simply failed these service men and women. The stories are legion; we are all hearing them in our districts. I heard them for 3 hours that day. We do not have safe drinking water for our troops. Hundreds, thousands of our troops are getting, have gotten dysentery. We do not have sufficient antibiotics in many cases. We do not have, and this is the most shocking and the most troubling, we do not have enough body armor for our men and women in uniform. One-fourth of servicemen and -women lack the body armor they need; and that body armor will not be available until December, we are told by Mr. Bremer, the person the White House has hired, that President Bush has hired to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, and by Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Speaker, I am incredulous that we are spending $1 billion a week, 30 percent of that money going to the President's friends, and many of it, much of it in an unbid contract, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has shown us; yet we cannot find enough money to provide safe drinking water for our troops. We cannot supply and protect our troops sufficiently. We do not have enough money, or the wherewithal to get the antibiotics to them that they need, and we do not have sufficient body armor when President Bush knew we were going to war at least a year ago, and still cannot have enough body armor for our men and women there. So I do not get it. We have seen this kind of corruption and incompetence on the part of the President, the White House, the military, the civil authority, the military leaders. We are seeing brave men and women over there. But the people who are running this operation, we are seeing corruption and we are seeing incompetence, and we are seeing a small number of companies get incredibly rich. We are seeing the President's campaign chest fatten every day. Tomorrow the President is going to be in Columbus, Ohio, in my State, raising several hundred thousand dollars, maybe $1 million. We are hearing that every week he is going out on a funding trip. Vice President Cheney, about the only time he is in public is for a fund- raising trip. They always raise money from Halliburton and Bechtel and these contractors. So, I mean, think of this circle. We are spending $87 billion this Congress is about to appropriate. We are already spending a billion dollars a week. A third of that money goes to private contractors who are friends of the President, who give money to the President's campaign. Yet where is the focus on protecting and supplying our troops? I guess it is not criminal, but it is just incredible to me that the President of the United States is so intent on fundraising and so intent on feeding his political friends and getting these political contributions in return, that this White House, and this administration, and the military brass and the civilian leaders that the President has appointed to run Iraq have taken their eye off the ball. They have lost focus on the most important thing over there and that is the supplying and protecting of our troops. I would like to see some answers. We apparently are not getting them. I hope tonight, if some people from some of the top brass of the Pentagon are watching, some people at the White House, maybe they can give us answers. I asked Mr. Bremer at committee questions about this. We do not seem to be getting any answers there. I am nonplussed by it all, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this administration can do better so that our troops have safe drinking water, our troops have the body armor they need, our troops have the antibiotics they need. We can simplify this reconstruction of Iraq so we are not wasting huge amounts of money, so we are not doing it through unbid private contracts, so that we are doing it through a competitive bid process so Americans can feel more comfortable that our troops can be safer so that this operation will work better. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey. I do not have the technical expertise that the gentleman, the physicist, has. I, for 8 years, ran Ohio's election system, then the sixth largest election system in the country, an election system where we saw in Presidential elections 4.6 million Ohioans go to the polls. In gubernatorial years, we might see 3.2, 3.3 million people go to the polls. In primary and special elections, elections in odd number, mayoral years, township trustee year, we would see fewer people, but what underlined all of that, and I think my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) spoke this very well, was how important confidence in the system is and whether it is everyone for everyone, confidence in an accurate count is paramount. The confidence as far as the voter is concerned that my vote will be counted is paramount. Confidence that the candidates running for office or the advocates for the issues on the ballot or the opponents to the issues on the ballot, but all of the stakeholders, the players, the candidates, the participants they must be confident that the elections are held fairly and honestly. The media which cover the elections, which write about the elections, which analyze the elections, it is equally as important that the media have full confidence in the electoral process, that every vote is counted. While the technology is different from my career in the 1980s, from 1983 up through 1990, certainly the technology is different, I also saw technology evolve during those 8 years I was Secretary of State. In some counties, when I began, they used a simple paper ballot. Some counties used a machine. Some counties used that punch card. We began to see new technologies, counties using different methods of casting votes and counting votes, but in every one of those cases, in every one of those counties, what stayed paramount was the confidence that the votes would be counted properly so that the voter had confidence, the candidates had confidence and the media had confidence that this was a fair operation. They were confident because we, as election officials, there were people that ran the State election system, that ran each local precinct, each polling place, each local board of election, we could show to them that votes, in fact, were counted fairly. We had paper trails. No matter how they were voting we were able to show that, yes, the votes were counted correctly. We had plenty of people protest. We would have recounts, but during the recounts, people would be able to watch representatives of both sides to make sure the votes were counted fairly, and they always were in the end, and this is what my concern is. I am not a Luddite anymore than my physicist friend from New Jersey is. I am not against progress. I do not have any of those fears, but I am concerned as I hear people in my District in both parties express those concerns that we are voting on computers, and we do not have paper trails in some of this equipment. Then I hear some sort of irresponsible statements made by some executives from some companies who are active participants in these elections, and I hear comments from people I know around my State that that scares a little bit, and I do not think this is a question of fear, but it is a question of concern, and I am just asking this Congress to pay special attention to this whole process so that people can continue to have confidence in the election system. Every election is a big election. This election next year, I think we will see the highest voter turnout we have had in decades because I think people have such strong feelings on all sides about the way the country is being run today, and I want to be able to say in good conscience, say next October as we lead into the November election, that I have full confidence in the way that votes will be cast and full confidence in the way that votes will be counted. It is what we owe the people. It is what our republic is based on, one person, one vote, and one person, one vote only works if every one of those one voters have the confidence in the election that they need to have. So I thank my friend from New Jersey for his yeoman's work and leadership on this.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 1838, former President, then- Congressman, John Quincy Adams came to the House floor because he was prohibited, as were the other Members of Congress, from debating the most important issue of the day. Conservative leadership in the House of Representatives between 1838 and 1842 had passed a rule prohibiting and banning the discussion of slavery on the floor of the House of Representatives. Then-Congressman John Quincy Adams came to the floor, day after day, week after week, sharing letters from his constituents, many of them from women who could not vote in those days, sharing letters from his constituents asking, pleading with the House, that they debate the issue of slavery and that they ban and wipe away that blot on American history. In some ways similarly today, Members of this House have not had the opportunity to debate the issues of Iraq, of keeping our troops safe in Iraq, of providing and supplying our troops, of the corruption and the incompetence in the Pentagon and in the Bush administration in supplying the troops and turning over so many public dollars to private contractors. As a result, I would like to share some of those concerns. Since we are not debating the issues on the House floor, I would like share some of the concerns with letters from my constituents. Sabba, from Richfield, Ohio, writes, ``The Bush administration had no concrete evidence confirming the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush completely disregarded the United Nations' dissenting opinion.'' You can see in letter after letter I am receiving in Ohio, and my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Jones) and Members from both parties in Ohio are receiving from all over the country, people's concerns that the President and the administration may not have leveled with the American people about all of these issues. Margaret of Strongsville writes, ``Please don't throw money into a vast pit which will affect us all for another several generations.'' Margaret is referring to the $1 billion a week that the President is already spending in Iraq, a third of that money unaccounted for, going to private contractors, many of them the President's friends, and that is where she and so many others believe there is so much waste and so much pork. Marvin of Akron, Ohio, says, ``The request must be carefully scrutinized and unnecessary expenditures removed.'' Thomas of Akron, Ohio, writes, ``How much debt is acceptable?'' What he is writing about is he understands, as most Members of this House do, I think, on both sides of the aisle, that the $87 billion is put on a government credit card. We are going to spend our children's and our grandchildren's money, in large part, because Congress has voted a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. The average millionaire in this country, as Thomas knows from his letter, the average millionaire in this country gets a $93,000 tax cut. Half of Ohioans get no tax cut at all. Yet, we are not going to rescind that tax cut for the richest of Americans, for the American millionaires that get $93,000; we are going to put this war on a credit card so that that $87 billion plus the $80 billion that Congress has already spent, plus the tens of billions more that we know President Bush will ask for, will be paid for by our children and our grandchildren. Crystal of Akron writes, ``Please think long and hard before you spend $87 billion. To what end?'' We hear that over and over and over. When I read these letters, Mr. Speaker, one thing also that comes out is people understand that of this $1 billion a week we are spending in Iraq, one-third of it goes to private contractors. Most of those private contracts are unbid contracts, and most of that money is going to friends of the President. Halliburton, Bechtel, corporation after corporation, if you look at FEC reports, you see those corporations, the employees of those corporations are giving hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of dollars to the President's campaign. And to make that even worse, Mr. Speaker, Halliburton, the company where the former CEO is now the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Halliburton has received over $2 billion in government contracts, over $1 billion in unbid, unaccounted for contracts; and Halliburton is still paying Vice President Cheney, still paying Vice President Cheney $13,400 a month. Vice President Cheney is receiving $13,000, more than $13,000 a month, $160,000 a year, from this company that gets unbid contracts of taxpayer dollars to fix Iraq, to supply the troops, to do whatever that Halliburton is supposedly doing. Halliburton's profits have gone sky high while they have the go on these contracts, while they have paid the Vice President of the United States. It is just amazing to me. All of us in this body should be incredulous that we are spending this kind of money, giving this money to a company like Halliburton, with unbid contracts, literally hundreds of millions of dollars a week, and then this company turns around and pays Vice President Cheney $13,000 a month. Mr. Speaker, I close with the last letter, Anthony from Akron, Ohio: ``Bush needs to face up to these facts. I am 16 years old. I myself feel that growing up in America will now be tougher because of all of these things that are going on.'' Mr. Speaker, end the corruption, end the incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq, do it right. Fix Iraq the right way. Stop the corruption. Stop the incompetence.