Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues, if they have children or grandchildren, pay attention to what I am going to say because this is very important. Recently, there was an article put out by AP that was in the Indianapolis Star which was on the front page that I read, and it said that women and children should eat less fish, and the reason they should eat less fish is because there is a high mercury content in the fish and it can cause neurological problems in the children and in the parents if they eat too much fish. What the article did not say is that many of the vaccinations that adults get and many of the vaccinations that the children get have mercury in them. So we are not supposed to eat the fish, but it is all right for the pharmaceutical industry to put a preservative called thimerosal into a vaccination and then inject their children with it and then the children get the mercury directly from a needle and it goes into the brain and causes neurological problems. This is not baloney. My grandson got nine shots in 1 day, seven of which contained thimerosal, mercury; and within about 2 or 3 or 4 days, he became autistic. These are pictures of children from across the country who were normal children who received a number of shots containing mercury, and they became autistic. Many of their parents have testified before my committee as to how their children were before they got the shots and how they were after they got the shots. We have been raising Cain with the Food and Drug Administration to get mercury out of children's vaccines and we got it out of almost all of them. But it is still in three: the HIB vaccine, the Hepatitis B, and the flu vaccine. I want to get it out of all of them because no child should be subjected to having mercury injected into their body. If it is bad for them to eat fish with mercury in it, then it is sure a heck of a lot worse for them to get a shot from a needle, a vaccination that puts mercury into their bodies. Children used to get one or two shots. When I was a kid, we did not get many shots. We were kept out of school if we had mumps or measles or any of those things, but now they give them shots for all that. A child, before he starts in the first grade, gets as many as 30 shots. Can the Members imagine 30 shots with mercury in them, the cumulative effect of that on the brains of these children? For those who are concerned about it as adults, and I see some gray hairs in the room, the flu vaccine, the tetanus vaccine, almost all the vaccines that we get, and our troops get in the field, get as many as 11 in 1 day in the Persian Gulf, most of those contain thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury. We need to collectively, as a body, tell the Food and Drug Administration and our health agencies to get mercury out of all vaccines. It is not necessary. If we go to single-shot vials, we do not need to have mercury in there as a preservative to make sure that they are not contaminated. All we have to do is use common sense. The problem is it is going to cost just a few cents more per shot to make sure that it does not contain mercury. If we really care about the thousands of children who are becoming autistic and the people who are getting Alzheimer's, we need to get mercury out of the vaccines. There is an epidemic of Alzheimer's now. We used to have one out of 10,000 children who were autistic. Now it is one out of about 200. Anybody who has a parent or grandchild ought to listen to what I am saying, because if their child gets numerous shots with mercury in them, they run the risk of being autistic. I have had hearings for 4 years now, and I am telling the Members that scientists from around the world agree with what I am telling them. Many countries in the world have taken mercury out of the vaccines. We need to do it here.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the United States grants Temporary Protective Status (TPS) to about 400,000 citizens of El Salvador annually, and helps facilitate their sending about $2 billion home to their families each year. We do this, in part, because the United States enjoys a positive working relationship with the democratic government there. Unfortunately, the communist candidate for the Presidency, and his political party, the FMLN, has explicitly stated their support for the communist narco-guerrilas who have been attacking the democratic government of Colombia since 1962. They have also said that upon their election to office they will immediately open full diplomatic relations with communist Cuba, a country recognized by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. Based upon these disturbing statements, should the communist/FMLN candidate assume the Presidency of El Salvador, it may well be necessary for the United States to reconsider our relationship with El Salvador, the continuation of TPS for Salvadoran citizens, and our current support for their sending remittances back home. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the following statement, which I believe provides a concise overview of this matter placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I strongly urge my colleagues to read it and keep it firmly in mind as we await the results of the March 21st elections in El Salvador. Statement on U.S. National Security Policy Regarding the FMLN tps and national security In making immigration decisions, such as the granting or extension of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) or the conversion of TPS to Permanent Resident Status or other considerations that enable foreign nationals to remain in the United States, the U.S. government must put first the national security of the United States. tps and the pro-terrorist regimes For that reason, the granting of TPS to nationals of a country should be immediately reviewed and, in most cases, terminated, if a pro-terrorist party wins power or enters the government of that country. the fmln as a pro-terrorist party The FMLN, a political party in El Salvador, can be considered a pro-terrorist party because of its support for designated terrorist organizations, such as the FARC, and for the public participation by some of its leaders in a pro-Al Qaeda rally where the U.S. flag was burned, this taking place immediately after September 11, 2001. The U.S. Embassy in El Salvador was forced to condemn the written public statements related to the September 11th attacks that were issued by the FMLN and hostile toward the U.S. The FMLN was created as an armed subversive communist organization that sought the violent overthrow of the Government of El Salvador in order to replace it with a pro- Castro Marxist-Leninist regime. After years of armed aggression and terrorism, the FMLN signed a peace agreement in 1992 that brought the violence to an end and led to the participation of the FMLN in the political process. The leader of the FMLN has reiterated recently his commitment to communism. The FMLN continues to participate actively in international gatherings with violent and radical anti-U.S. groups and terrorist organizations. Recent purges in the FMLN have left the party under the complete control of its most hard-line communist leaders. The FMLN is also known to organize in the United States among the Salvadoran immigrant community. excellent current relations Between U.S.-El Salvador It must be emphasized that the United States has superb relations with the current government of El Salvador, led by the party ARENA. This friendship is based on confidence, shared values, mutually beneficial international policies and strong personal relationships. Excellent bi-lateral relations permit a high-level of cooperation on important national security matters. El Salvador provides military and intelligence cooperation and is part of the coalition that has sent armed forces to post-war Iraq. The Salvadoran government is also an active promoter of the free trade agreement with the United States. tps based on excellent strategic relationship In the context of excellent relations and close cooperation, the U.S. government was able to grant and extend TPS for the benefit of nearly 300,000 Salvadorans now living and working in the United States. For similar reasons, the U.S. government has not had special concerns about the source and use of the $2 billion per year in remittances sent by Salvadorans in the United States to their home country, allowing the free movement of that large sum. The government of El Salvador has shown itself to be a reliable and trustworthy counterpart regarding U.S. national security. fmln in government radically changes the equation If the FMLN enters the government of El Salvador following the presidential elections scheduled for March 2004, it will mean a radical termination of the conditions that permitted the granting of TPS in the first place. The U.S. government would have no reliable counterpart to satisfy legitimate national security concerns, especially those regarding the threat posed by pro-terrorist groups and the providing of funding for those groups. fmln in government would require termination of tps Therefore, if the FMLN enters the government in El Salvador it will be necessary for the U.S. authorities to consider all available information regarding the ties of the FMLN to violent anti-U.S. groups and designated terrorist groups and, on that basis, proceed toward the immediate termination of TPS for El Salvador. fmln in government would require review of remittances In many instances, pro-terrorist groups conduct fundraising in the United States, and special controls and restrictions on the flow of funds have been applied where necessary. Given the pro-terrorist nature of the FMLN and its ties to designated terrorist groups, if the FMLN enters the government in El Salvador, it will be urgent to apply special controls to the flow of remittances from the United States to El Salvador, a sum that is currently $2 billion per year.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on January 31, 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry referred to ``Sikhs in India'' as an example of terrorists. As you know, I have been a supporter of freedom for all people in South Asia, including the Sikhs. Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan is well known among my colleagues as an invaluable source of information on the situation in India and Kashmir. He and his organization are committed to freeing Khalistan, the Sikh homeland, by peaceful, democratic, and non-violent means. However, the Indian government portrays their actions as terrorism. I was saddened to see that Senator Kerry apparently agreed with this mischaracterization. The Sikhs I have met are responsible citizens. They make important contributions to many facets of American life. Dalip Singh Saund, a Sikh, even proudly served in the Congress. Many Sikhs, including Dr. Aulakh, were quite offended by the statement made by Senator Kerry, and they have asked for an apology. I hope that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will do the right thing and retract his statement. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the Council of Khalistan's letter to Senator Kerry placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. Council of Khalistan, Washington, DC, February 11, 2004. Senator John F. Kerry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing to you today on behalf of half a million Sikh Americans and over 25 million Sikhs worldwide to say that your remarks equating Sikhs with terrorists were offensive to the Sikh community. While giving a speech in Oklahoma, you referred to ``the Sikhs in India'' as an example of terrorism. Sikhism is an independent, monotheistic, revealed religion, not a part of any other religion. Sikhs are distinctive by our religion, language, and culture from any other people on Earth. Sikhs ruled Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and again from 1765 to 1849. Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians all participated in the government. Sikhs are a separate nation and people. At the time of India's independence, three nations were to receive sovereign power: the Muslims, who got Pakistan, the Hindus, who got India, and the Sikhs. Sikhs took their share with India on the solemn promise that Sikhs would enjoy ``the glow of freedom'' in Punjab and no law affecting Sikh rights would be passed without our consent. Instead, almost as soon as the ink was dry on India's independence, Nehru sent out a directive describing Sikhs as ``a criminal class'' and ordering police to take extraordinary measures against us. Since June 1984, India has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human rights groups and published in the book The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. A report from the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) shows that India admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners. Some have been in illegal custody since 1984! Tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held as political prisoners, according to Amnesty International. Indian forces carried out the March 2000 massacre in the village of Chithisinghpora, according to two independent investigations. Indian forces were caught red-handed trying to set fire to a Sikh Gurdwara and Sikh homes in a village in Kashmir. Sikh and Muslim villagers joined hands to stop them. The book Soft Target, written by two Canadian journalists, Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star, shows conclusively that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 innocent people, to blame it on the Sikhs and have an excuse for more repression. Other minorities such as Christians and Muslims, among others, have also felt the lash of Indian repression. Over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland have been killed by the terrorist Indian regime. Nuns have been raped, priests have been murdered, churches have been burned, schools and prayer halls have been destroyed, all with impunity. A mob of militant Hindus affiliated with the parent organization of the ruling BJP murdered missionary Graham Staines and his two sons by burning them to death while they slept in their jeep, all the while chanting ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. India threw missionary Joseph Cooper from Pennsylvania out of the country after he was beaten so severely that he had to spend a week in the hospital. A Christian religious festival on the theme ``Jesus is the answer'' was broken up by police gunfire. Almost two year ago, Muslims were massacred in Gujarat while police were ordered to stand by and do nothing, according to Indian newspaper reports. One newspaper quoted a policeman as saying that the Indian government planned the massacre in advance. This is an eerie parallel to the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi, in which police were locked in their barracks while the state-run radio and television called for more Sikh blood. An Indian Cabinet minister was quoted as saying that everyone who lives in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to Hindus. This kind of religious fanaticism as state policy is dangerous and anti-democratic. We would not want it in America; why should we support it in India? On October 7, 1987, Sikhs declared their independence from India, naming their new country Khalistan. We are committed to liberating Khalistan by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent means. History shows that multinational states such as Austria-Hungary, the Soviet Union, and India are doomed to fall apart. We intend to see that this happens peacefully, in the manner of Czechoslovakia, not violently like Yugoslavia. Yet simply supporting a sovereign, independent Khalistan is what India calls terrorism. The 20,000 Sikhs who were murdered in the June 1984 attack on the Golden Temple and 37 other Sikh Gurdwaras throughout Punjab were not terrorists. They were seeking refuge from the Indian government's tyranny. Yet the Indian government insists on describing them as ``terrorists,'' as if repeating it often enough will make it true. Senator Kerry, we respectfully request that you apologize to the Sikh Nation and the Sikh community in the United States for your remark. I urge you to support measures to bring freedom to all the people of the subcontinent. Sikhs share the commitment to freedom you showed when you fought in Vietnam and in your service in public office. There was even a Sikh member of Congress in the late 1950s, Dalip Singh Saund of California. We look forward to working with you in the future to bring the blessings of liberty to everyone in the subcontinent. If you would like any further information or would like to meet about these issues, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been in my office listening to the rhetoric. It has been very interesting. People have been talking about how this resolution divides us. I do not think it is the resolution. I think it is the rhetoric. We are all in support of our troops, but those who have been over there, as we were just a couple of weeks ago, know that our troops know they are doing the right thing. They know that the Iraqi people are happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. We talked to people when I was over there that said they did not have 400,000 people in mass graves, people that were tortured in the prison; but they believe it was more like between 1 million and 1.3 million. Over 1 million people were thrown into mass graves. That alone is reason enough to get that guy out of there. But let us talk about weapons of mass destruction. In the 1980s, the Israelis attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq because they knew he was going to build a nuclear weapon, and a nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. He used, as we all know, chemical weapons to kill thousands and thousands of Kurds, women and children, and he used those same things in the Iran-Iraq war that went on for 7 years. So this guy used weapons of mass destruction. He violated every single U.N. resolution that came out of the United Nations. So why should we believe that he would not have weapons of mass destruction, that he would disarm himself when he violated every agreement that he made? And he used weapons of mass destruction. The President had every right to do what he did. Saddam Hussein was a threat not only to the region but to the whole world. As far as working with al Qaeda, you will never convince me that he was not working with the international terrorist network, including al Qaeda. That guy wanted to destroy our way of life and everything we believe in. Some of my colleagues today have been down here on the floor haranguing about how they feel about this. I want to quote some of my Democratic colleagues and what they have said in the past. On December 17, 1998, regarding Iraqi women and children and how they should be protected, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said: ``I also say that we in this body, along with the Commander in Chief, must have a definitive policy to protect the suffering women and children and to make sure that democracy comes to the region.'' That is a little different than the tone we are hearing today. My distinguished colleague for whom I have high regard, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), said: ``Had the President not ordered the attack, many would have bitterly criticized him for not having followed through with the tough words he uttered just 1 month ago.'' And also my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) came to the floor to decry criticism of President Clinton's motives for ordering air strikes on Iraq. He said: ``To my colleagues who have questioned the President's motives in the midst of this crisis, shame on them. Shame on them for breaking the longstanding tradition that leaves party politics at our Nation's shores.'' What are we hearing today? Party politics. This is a resolution congratulating our troops and talking about doing the right thing in Iraq, and we ought to be working together instead of criticizing each other for this. Then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) echoed those sentiments at the same time when he said, ``For one day we should have been patriots, not partisans. Politics should have stopped at the water's edge.'' How about today? That is what the Democrat colleagues of mine were saying just a few years ago. And, of course, the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), said on National Public Radio's ``Talk of the Nation'' program, ``There is no question that everyone wants regime change in Iraq. The question is change to what?'' And then on the ``O'Reilly Factor'' she said in 2002, ``I think Americans and those in Congress are unified in wanting and joining the President in wanting a regime change in Iraq.'' Then let me quote the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), who said in 2002, ``We cannot simply hope that Saddam Hussein will be deterred. He has shown himself to be an inveterate and dangerous gambler.'' The gentleman from New York was not wrong. This is a good resolution. We ought to all join together to pass it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from leading a Congressional delegation trip to Iraq and due to an unavoidable delay, I was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 32 and 33. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 32, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 33.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, today we passed legislation to protect the unborn from acts of violence. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997, sends a clear and strong statement that anyone who injures or kills unborn children is committing a crime. I wish my fellow colleagues would join me in making as equally strong a statement when it comes to injuring our children by injecting them or their mothers or their fathers with vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal. Over the last several years, I have conducted 19 hearings on vaccine safety and the detrimental health effects of other mercury-containing medical products. On May 21, 2003, my subcommittee's 80-page report entitled, ``Mercury in Medicine--Taking Unnecessary Risks'' was published in its entirety in the Congressional Record. This study was the result of a 3-year investigation initiated during my tenure as the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and it outlines the undeniable connection between mercury in all its forms and possible permanent health risks, including brain and kidney damage. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, developing fetuses and young children are the most vulnerable and susceptible to the potential harms of mercury damage. Because of this, a joint statement was issued in July 1999 by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service, ``recommending removal of Thimerosa from vaccines as soon as possible (CDC, 1999).'' It is now 2004, and there are still at least 3 vaccines on the pediatric schedule that still contain Thimerosal (flu, Hib/HepB, and DtaP). In 2001, the Institute of Medicine conducted an Immunization Safety Review meeting on safety concerns regarding Thimerosal. In their report, it was concluded in their ``Recommendations Regarding the Public Health Response'' section that ``. . . a causal relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders . . . is biologically plausible.'' I believe that it is good public policy and simple common sense for this House to strongly assert that all United States Health Agencies should take concrete steps to eliminate the usage of mercury in any capacity, particularly from all vaccines and dental amalgams. I believe that it is good public policy and simple common sense for this House to strongly assert that any vaccinations provided under or purchased for the Vaccines for Children Program be completely devoid of Thimerosal. Numerous scientists have testified that there is a simple way to do this, and that is to only use single-shot vials--those little glass containers. Manufacturers would not have to put Thimerosal or any other preservative in their vaccines if they switched to the single-shot vials. Moving to single-shot vials could have an enormously positive impact in helping to minimize, perhaps even eliminate, some cases of Alzheimer's, autism, and other neurological disorders linked to mercury. This is something that the pharmaceutical companies must address. Our Food and Drug Administration and health agencies are asleep at the switch. They are letting children and adults be damaged day after day after day by allowing mercury to continue to be put into vaccines for adults and children. We have a growing number of people who are being diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a dramatically growing number. We have 1 in 10,000 children 10 years ago that were autistic, now it is 1 in 150. And scientists before my Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness say it is in large part because of the mercury in the vaccines. We have to get the FDA on the stick. They have to demand that pharmaceutical products containing mercury have the mercury taken out of them very, very quickly. If not, we are going to continue to have an epidemic on our hands that America does not need and should not tolerate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk over the past few months and debate here in the Congress about the high cost of prescription drugs. I just got a letter from one of my constituents in Indiana, Joseph Neff. Joseph is 67. He and his wife buy a lot of prescription pharmaceuticals from Canada. In this letter he sent me, it shows a 3-month supply of the products he has been buying from Canada, and it shows he is going to save $3,007 a year by buying pharmaceuticals from Canada, the very same thing he would buy here in the United States, the same identical prescription drugs; and yet they cost less in Canada than if he bought them here in the United States. He is saving 50 percent on the prescription drugs he is buying from Canada. If he bought them through AARP on a discount card, it would be 10 percent. So he still saves more by going directly to Canada. The pharmaceutical industry has been fighting day and night to stop reimportation of pharmaceuticals. They have gone to the FDA and HHS, and they have told them it is not safe to have reimportation; and our health agencies have been going along with it. And yet we held four hearings, and we asked them to give one example where people have been harmed by pharmaceuticals brought in from Canada. They could not name one example. So the pharmaceutical industry has unusual support at our health agencies. They have undue influence at our health agencies; and as a result, American people are paying exorbitant prices for prescription drugs compared to what they are paying in Canada, Germany, and other parts of the world. Just recently there was a poll that was released by the Associated Press and stated that a third of American families struggle to afford their prescriptions, and 73 percent of those families have to cut their dosages by as much as half so they can take care of their health needs. Two-thirds of those polled felt that the Federal Government should open up this market and make it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other countries at lower cost. So why does our government not listen to the people we represent? There is no safety issue. That is a bogus argument. Yet the health agencies continue to walk in lock-step with the pharmaceutical companies saying it is a health risk, and it is simply about money. The big profits they make in the United States are huge compared to what they are making in other countries. We continue to let them do that when the price they charge should be fair and equitable throughout the world. All of their profits should not be loaded on the backs of the American people who are struggling to make ends meet. In July of this year, we had a vote on this floor. The vote overwhelmingly passed saying that we wanted the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to be allowed so Americans can get the breaks that they are getting in other countries. Even though that passed, when the Medicare prescription drug bill came out of conference committee, they left that out. The other thing that bothers me is the American people realize that our government should be negotiating to make sure that Medicare prescription drug prices are as low as possible, and yet there is a prohibition in law passed by the Congress of the United States that does not allow our government under the Medicare prescription drug bill to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for the American taxpayers. So we pay the highest prices for pharmaceuticals that the pharmaceutical companies want to charge, while in other countries there are negotiations taking place between their governments and the pharmaceutical industry. This just is not right. This is something my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel very, very strongly about. Mr. Speaker, we have to take our health agencies and anybody else to task who is trying to load all of the profits of pharmaceuticals on the backs of the American people. The American people need fairness; they need to know that they are going to be treated fairly. They should not have to cut their pharmaceutical products in half in order to stretch them out to take care of their health needs. They do not want to pay up to 300 percent more than they are paying in Canada for the pharmaceuticals products, and they should not be called criminals because they go across the Canadian border and buy the very same product up there for less than they can get it here in the United States. In addition, governors of 25 States and a multitude of cities across the country are now trying to negotiate with Canadian pharmaceutical distributors to buy their pharmaceutical products through Canada because they will save so much money, and it will help their budgets at the State and local level. This is a problem that is not going to go away. The pharmaceutical industry and our health agencies need to address this problem; and, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be quiet on this floor until this problem is solved.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, for about the past 4 years we have been talking about children with autism. We have gone from 1 in 10,000 children who are autistic to 1 in 150 to 200. It is an absolute epidemic. And we have had hearing after hearing where we brought in scientists from around the world who told us that one of the major reasons for children to become autistic and have ADHD and other mental problems and psychological problems is because of an additive that was put into vaccines called thimerosal. It is a mercury-based additive, a preservative, that is supposed to preserve the vaccine if you put it in multiple shot vials. Recently, a study was done by researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Northeastern University in Boston, the University of Nebraska and Tufts University, and it was published in the Vancouver Sun. It was not in any American newspaper, but in the Vancouver, British Columbia, Sun. It had a headline, ``Vaccine additive linked to brain damage in children. Mercury-based preservative tied to autism, ADHD, U.S. researchers say.'' After that came out, there was a flurry of activity over at Health and Human Services, and the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Review Board met yesterday and said, well, there is no conclusive evidence that this is causing that kind of a problem. No conclusive evidence? One in 10,000 children used to be autistic; now it is 1 in 150 to 200. It is going to cost us billions and trillions of dollars to take care of them over the years to come because they are not going to be able to cope with society. This study is going to be published in a scientific journal in April called Molecular Psychiatry. This meeting that took place yesterday with the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Review Board, they had the people that were on the side of the pharmaceutical companies saying, oh, there is no proof that the mercury in vaccines is causing these neurological problems. The fact of the matter is, almost all of the people who were taking that position were people who had a vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry's position. They were getting money for research grants. Their universities where they study were getting grants from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of these people work for pharmaceutical companies, and they are taking the position that mercury in vaccines does not cause brain damage. But it does not just affect kids. An article that came out just a couple of days ago said that one in four women aged 55 and older are going to suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's, and one in six men aged 55 and older are going to suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's. So the mercury in our vaccines is not just damaging our kids and hurting our society for future generations, but it is hurting seniors as well. Something has to be done about it. We have to get mercury, which everybody knows is a toxic substance, out of anything that goes into the human body, especially vaccines. Now because of our hearings and raising cain over the past 4 years, we have been able to get it out of all children's vaccines except two, but they are still putting it in two children's vaccines. We need to get it out of all of them. Adults, for my friends in Congress, if you are interested, when you get your flu vaccine, it has mercury in it; and almost every vaccination you get when you go overseas to visit Iraq and every place else has mercury in it. Our troops in the Persian Gulf were getting as many as 11 shots in one day that had mercury in it; and those people, if these researchers are correct, are going to suffer at some point in their life neurological damage. So I would like to say to my colleagues who may be paying attention tonight, these are pictures of children who have been damaged who are autistic. Their parents have to deal with them on a daily basis. Many of them grow up to be 14 or 15 years old, and they go into fits because of their mental disorder and because of autism. The parents are scared to death of them, but they do not want to put their kids in a mental institution, they want to keep them at home, and they do not have the funds to deal with it. It is just an American tragedy, a tragedy that does not need to occur if we would just get mercury out of all vaccines, especially children's vaccines. We need to do it now, and the people at HHS and FDA and the pharmaceutical industry need to come to the truth and tell the American people that there is a problem. I would like to end with a quote from a prominent scientist. His name was Charles Sanders Pierce. He was a renowned American scientist. He said, ``There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is the sincere desire to find the truth, whatever it may be.'' So I say to my friends at HHS and the pharmaceutical industry, get with the program. Let the American people know the truth and get mercury out of vaccines.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, during rollcall votes 2 through 5. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea''; for rollcall vote 2, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 3, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 4, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 5.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to official business outside the Washington, DC, area, I was unable to be present during rollcall votes 673-677. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall votes 673-677.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, today I come to the House floor in strong support of H. Res. 453, a House resolution condemning the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Turkey and expressing condolences to the families of the individuals murdered. On November 15 and 20, four horrific terrorist attacks rocked Istanbul. Two Jewish synagogues, the British Consulate and the London- based HSBC bank were the targets. Faceless, cowardly terrorists who thrive on inflicting fear and terror on the innocent carried out these attacks. These recent attacks epitomize the fact that terrorism knows no boundaries and does not distinguish between religion, nationality or culture. Terrorism must be condemned in the strongest terms whenever and wherever it occurs. The Government of Turkey appropriately did so and has vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. But, no one country can do this alone. In order for the perpetrators of terrorism to be brought to justice, all the countries of the world must stand united against terrorism that targets the civilized world. For over fifty years, Turkey has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. as one of our most valued strategic partners and it is only fitting that Congress express sympathy for those murdered and wounded, extend condolences to the bereaved families and affirm our unity with Turkey in the ongoing fight against terror. I am pleased that the House Leadership scheduled H. Res. 453 for floor action today.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I admire our President and my leaders in the House, but I want to tell you why I oppose this bill. The average senior is going to pay $4,000 in order to receive the first $1,500 in benefits. Now, we should take care of the 24 percent of seniors across this country that have no drug coverage; but this covers all of them, including the 76 percent that do have coverage. Employers will, in my opinion, in spite of a $70 billion payoff, drop their seniors and put them on the government program, and they are going to get less coverage than they have right now, and it will cost a lot more. This program is going to cost much more, in my opinion, than the $400 billion that we estimate. I think it will go as high as maybe a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. And, finally, there is no negotiation with the pharmaceutical companies on drug prices even though Americans are paying as much as five to 10 times more than they are paying in Germany and Canada and other places in the world; and that is just not right.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make it clear, I am a Republican and I am very proud to be a Republican. However, there are problems with this bill that make it impossible for me to vote for it. It has been said tonight that 35 million AARP members cannot be wrong, but I am telling you AARP does not speak for all seniors. And when the seniors find out what is in this bill, that most of them initially are going to pay about $4,000 of the first $5,000 they are going to spend on pharmaceuticals, they are going to be so angry it is going to be like 1988 all over again. Now, I want to talk a little bit about the pharmaceutical industry. There is nothing in here that allows our government to negotiate the prices with the pharmaceutical industry. We pay the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals. We pay seven, eight, nine, 10 times as much for Tamoxifen, a woman who has breast cancer and has to have it, than they do in Canada; and yet there is no provision in this bill for negotiation. You say we have a 25 percent discount card. Twenty-five percent of what? If the pharmaceutical industry has these high prices and you knock 25 percent off, they are still a hell of a lot higher than they are in Canada or Germany, and yet we cannot reimport. Why? It does not make sense. Do we believe in free trade? We have NAFTA. You can import everything back and forth across the borders, but not pharmaceuticals because it is not safe. Yet when we talk to the Canadians, and I had four hearings on it, they could not find one case where there was a problem. This is not a safety issue. The problem is profit and price. I want to tell you something. It has been said that for too long seniors have paid too much. They have been paying too much. But we are not doing anything in this bill to lower the price of pharmaceutical products. Now, I want to say to my colleagues also there is $70 billion in this bill, a pay-off to Big Business to keep their employees and their former employees covered under this plan. I want to tell you something. As a businessman, they are going to look down the road and they are going to say, hey, Congress changes from time to time and they are going to start dumping their employees on the Federal plan. And when they do, those retirees are going to be so angry at us, you are not going to believe it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last night I took a special order, and I talked about what seniors are going to pay under the new Medicare prescription drug program if it is passed in its present form; and I understand it is coming out of committee just a little bit different than that we said last night, but the end result is the same. They are changing the annual deductible from $275 to $250, but the seniors will be paying 25 percent of the next $2,250 minus the annual deductible. So the seniors for $1,500 in coverage will be paying $1,170, and that is not well known by most of the seniors with whom I have talked. And then there is a doughnut hole which goes up to $5,100, and seniors will pay an additional $2,850 with no coverage for that. That means seniors up to $5,100 under the new prescription drug benefit will pay $4,020 and the government will pay $1,500. Now, that is not what I think seniors are expecting. I think they are expecting coverage that is much broader than that; and I think they are going to be very unpleasantly surprised when they realize that they will be paying a tremendous amount of money for very small amount of coverage. Now, above the $5,000 level, the catastrophic health care benefit kicks in, and that is 95 percent of that. But the average senior pays about $1,800 year in prescription drug costs, and they will not reach that level. There will be very few that reach that level. So most seniors, if they pay $5,000 for their prescription drugs in a given year, the average senior, they will pay $4,020 and the Federal Government will pay $1,500. I think they will be very angry when they find out that is the case. I believe we should pass a bill that takes care of those who are uninsured, who do not have prescription drug coverage. Right now, 76 percent of American seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage. And the program that we are talking about in most cases is going to give them less coverage than what they already have. Now, the 24 percent of the seniors that do not have coverage, we should deal with them. We should help them. Those who are indigent, those who have health problems where they cannot get coverage, we need to take care of those. But those who are already covered, I do not believe our government should start taking care of. The cost of this program is estimated to be somewhere around $400 billion over 10 years. I have another chart which I am not bring forward right now, but it shows what happened with Medicare. Medicare when it was passed in 1965 cost $3 billion. Two years ago in the year 2001, Medicare cost $241 billion. That is an 80 times increase. It went up 80 times since 1964. The Medicaid program which we passed in Indiana under duress started out, we thought, costing a few million. We estimated a top figure of $20 million. It has cost well over $1 billion just for Indiana's share, and it has gone up about 70 times since 1969. Anybody who thinks that this donut hole is not going to be a big issue to seniors is sorely mistaken, in my opinion; and I believe that they will demand that this donut hole, this $2,850 that is not covered, will shrink. When that happens, there is going to be a tremendous increase in the cost of this program. I believe the $400 billion price tag for 10 years is very low. I believe it will be more than double that, maybe up to $1 trillion over 10 years, but only time will tell. The other thing that really concerns me is we are paying $70 billion to American industry so that they will not dump their retired employees on the Federal Government program. The fact of the matter is I believe long term the businessmen and industrialists in this country are going to say we do not know what Congress is going to do tomorrow, and they are going to start dumping their employees on the Federal program anyhow; and when that happens, the retirees are going to see the program that they are under with their previous employer go out the window, and they are going to be put on the government program. Their coverage right now under their retired benefits with their previous employer is probably much, much better. In fact, I am sure it is much better than what they are going to get on the Federal program, and so the $70 billion buyout or payout they are going to give to industry I do not think is going to stop the dumping of employees on to this program out of independent industrial programs that are covered by private industry and companies. I think it is very realistic to believe those people will be put on the government program. So that is another cost that will be added to this program over the next 10 years. This is an open-ended entitlement. The floor, the floor is $400 billion. There is no ceiling. They will tell you there are some cost controls in it, but the fact of the matter is there really will not be, not over the long period of time; and the ultimate result of this is going to be an entitlement that is going to be like Medicare, like Medicaid. It is going to be out of control. It is not going to provide the benefits that the seniors anticipate, and I think they are going to be very, very angry. So I would just like to say to my colleagues, tomorrow or the next day when we decide to vote on this bill, think about what the seniors' reaction is going to be. In 1988 we passed a catastrophic health care bill. Only 11 Members, as I recall, voted against it. I was one of the 11, and 1 year later we repealed it because the seniors were so angry when they found out what was in it. I think they are going to be angry with this bill as well, and I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be voting before the end of the week on probably one of the most sweeping reforms in Medicare in the history of the program, and it is going to involve prescription drug coverage for seniors. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the bill, mainly because the bill has not been reported out of the committee yet; but we have gotten a synopsis of the bill, and I think it is important to see what this is really going to do. Tonight, and I am going to be doing this every night, tonight I have a chart that shows what seniors will really pay on average. This is an average. If we look at the chart, the annual premium that seniors will pay every year is $420, and then they have a $275 deductible which totals $695. Then they will pay 25 percent of the next $1,925. The government will pay 75 percent, and that is a figure of $481. If we add those together, that is $1,176. And when we take out the amount that the senior is going to pay as opposed to what the government is going to be pay, for that $1,176, the senior will be getting $1,444. After that there is what they call the doughnut hole: from $2,200 to $5,044 there is no coverage. So seniors will be required to pay on average about $2,844. If we add the other costs I enumerated, we are looking at a total cost to seniors on an annual basis, if they get about $5,000 in expenditures, they will pay $4,020 and the government will pay $1,444 of the total figure. The fact of the matter is the senior will be out $4,020, and the government's part will be $1,444. I think it is very important that we make certain seniors understand this before we pass this bill because I think most seniors believe they are going to get first dollar coverage or get very broad coverage in a very short period of time, and this will be a big disappointment to them, in my opinion. The other thing I would like to point out is the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. When I first got elected to the Indiana General Assembly, and I served in the Indiana State Senate, we were blackjacked by the Federal Government into taking Medicaid. At that time they told us it would cost about $20 million per year for the Medicaid bill. Medicaid in Indiana this past year was $1.3 billion for our share and $2.5 billion for the Federal Government share. If you just take the Indiana share, you will find that it is about 70 times what the initial cost was of Medicaid. So it went up 70 times since 1969. If you look at Medicare, Medicare was passed in 1965 and in 1967 Medicare cost, across the country, $3 billion. In 2001, Medicare cost $241 billion. I think it is very important that we put all this in perspective, because Medicare went up 80 times since 1965, Medicaid went up 70 times since 1969. And so we can anticipate that there will be a rapid growth in the prescription drug coverage as seniors find out what they are not getting and what they expected. I would like to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, seniors need to get the facts. The fact is they are not going to get the benefits that they think they are going to get, and if they do get the benefits that they think they are going to get, the cost is going to be much higher than the $400 billion over 10 years they have talked about. As a matter of fact, I have been told, and I cannot verify this, that CBO has said it is going to cost $432 billion over the next 10 years, and the bill has not yet been reported to my knowledge out of committee. I think this is very, very important. AARP, the senior organization, has said this is a very beneficial thing for seniors, and it is a good first step. I think they realize that when seniors find out about this, they are going to demand more. I can understand that. So what will happen, I believe, is what happened in 1988 when we passed the catastrophic health care bill. Seniors thought they were getting a good deal. I voted against that bill. There were 11 of us that voted against it in 1988. We were castigated by senior groups and seniors across the country because they said we did not care about them. But a year and a half later, when seniors found out what was in the bill, they were chasing Dan Rostenkowski, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, down the street with umbrellas, beating on his car saying, what have you done to us and the bill was repealed within a short period of time. I am going to make a prediction tonight. If we pass this bill in its present form, I believe that the seniors are going to be very upset not only with the Congress, but with AARP and other groups that say this is a very good first step. Because when they find out that the benefits that they anticipate are not there, they are going to be very angry just like it was in 1988. I would like to say to my colleagues, let us do what absolutely must be done to help seniors. Seventy-six percent of the seniors have a plan where they get their prescription drugs already. Twenty-four percent do not. We ought to help the 24 percent who do not. Those are the ones that we need to be helping. If we did that, I think we would solve a large part of the problem. I will be back tomorrow night.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my colleagues a little bit of history about the entitlement programs. When I was in the Indiana State Senate in 1969, the Federal Government came to Indiana and said if we did not take the Medicaid program, they would withdraw $2.5 million in Federal highway funds from Indiana. They were, in effect, blackjacking our State, and I went to the floor of the State Senate and said we ought to tell them to keep their $2.5 million because it will cost us 10 times that much if we take the Medicaid program. Boy, was I off. The Medicaid program that we thought would end up around $20, $25 million is now $1.4 billion or 70 times, 70 times what we anticipated, and then the Medicare program, which was passed in 1965 I believe, it was supposed to cost $3 billion the first year. In fact, it was $3 billion. In 2001, it was $241 billion. That is 80 times more, 80 times more than it was initially. The prescription drugs that are in the bill that we are talking about right now they said was going to cost $400 billion, that provision. The bill has not even gotten out of the conference committee yet, and it is already up to $432 billion according to CBO. If we look at the way the Medicaid program has progressed over the past 25 to 30 years and we look at how the Medicare program has progressed over the past 25 to 30 to 40 years, we can assume that the prescription drug benefit is going to go out of sight as well, and if that happens, if it goes up say 70 times, like Medicare and Medicaid did, we could see an annual expenditure for prescription drugs of $2- or $3 trillion. This thing could bankrupt America. So we should be looking at another approach, which is the reimportation that we talked about, putting competition and market prices into effect and competition to keep the prescription drug prices down. Seventy-six percent of the seniors in this country already have prescription drug coverage. So we are only talking about the other 24 or 25 percent, and yet we are going to have an all-encompassing program when we should only be helping those who truly need the help, but for those who really are looking forward to the program, let me just give my colleagues some facts, and I hope that there may be some seniors and my colleagues who are paying attention to this. The premium per year is $420. Then there is an additional $275 deductible. That is a total of $695 the seniors will have to pay before they get a dime, and then they pay 25 percent of the first $2,200 of prescription drugs that they buy. That is another $550. So they are going to pay $1,245 before they get a dime, $1,245, and then for that $1,245, they are going to get $1,650 in coverage. That is not the end of it because between $2,200 and $3,600 there is no coverage whatsoever. So that is another $1,400 that they will be out of pocket. If we add that together, that means if a senior citizen has to spend $3,000 on prescription drugs or if that is what the cost is, they are going to get $1,650 of that $3,000, and for that $1,650, they are going to pay $2,645. That is not a good deal for them. It is a very bad deal. Granted, some of the impoverished people who are a little bit below the poverty line are going to get a better deal than that, but the average senior is going to pay more than they are going to get if their bill is say a $3,000 prescription drug bill because they are going to pay $2,645 for the coverage that they are going to get, and that is $1,650 of the $3,000. I think that the AARP people and everybody else ought to take a hard look at that because I think the American seniors are being misled about this. We need to provide prescription drug coverage for those who truly need it, who cannot get it because of health reasons or cannot afford it, but we should have not a program that covers everybody when we cannot afford that. The cost is going to be extraordinarily high. What we should be doing instead is working on reimportation, market prices and competition, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has been advocating for a long, long time. If we did that, we could solve the problem, and we would not have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to do it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New Jersey will yield, the language in the bill is essentially the same as it is right now, and that is that the head of the health agency, HHS, all he has to do is say there is a safety issue, which he has already said, and there will be no reimportation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to be in Washington during rollcall votes 616-619. Had I been here I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall vote 616, ``aye'' for rollcall vote 617 and ``no'' for rollcall votes 618-619.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2620, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, which would authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. In these modern times, it is hard for Americans to believe that the problem of human slavery still exists. Not only do these crimes against humanity still occur, they are increasing in frequency all across the globe. To further investigate the topic of human slavery and trafficking in persons, I held a hearing before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Human Rights & Wellness on October 29, 2003, entitled, ``The Ongoing Tragedy of International Slavery and Human Trafficking: An Overview,'' to examine the worldwide effects of these illicit practices, and to discuss how United States policies and programs are beginning to have a positive effect in combating these crimes against humanity. Our investigation found that over 27,000,000 people are currently enslaved in some form around the world, and it is estimated that up to 4,000,000 men, women, and children are forced or coerced into slavery every year, which represents the highest concentration of slaves alive at one time ever in world history. Thankfully, the U.S. Government has been working tirelessly to eliminate the practices of slavery and trafficking in persons around the globe. This is mainly due to the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, authored by my dear friend and our esteemed colleague, Representative Chris Smith. This law has assisted victims by authorizing grants to shelters and rehabilitation programs to help victims of trafficking, and by establishing programs to prevent trafficking through the enhancement of economic opportunities for potential victims. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act promotes public awareness of the dangers of human slavery, and provides stringent penalties for persons who facilitate these crimes. H.R. 2620 not only reauthorizes, but builds upon the successes of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 by (1) requiring that U.S. Government contracts relating to international affairs contain clauses authorizing termination by the United States if the contractor engages in human trafficking, or procures commercial sexual services while the contract is in force; (2) promoting innovative trafficking prevention initiatives, such as border interdiction programs; and (3) requiring airlines to inform passengers about U.S. laws against sex tourism, among other enhanced protections for current victims of trafficking. Before the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, victims had no hope that they would be rescued from the horrid conditions into which they had been forced to live. The enactment of this law has not only put forth initiatives to prevent further human abuses, but has also given victims of slavery a real chance for liberty, and we as Members of Congress should do all that we can to promote their freedom. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing H.R. 2620 will continue to protect and liberate people who are currently enslaved against their will in these modern times, and I strongly urge my colleagues to continue to support this most important legislation.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of my former colleague and fellow Hoosier, Congressman Frank X. McCloskey, upon his untimely death after a year-long battle with bladder cancer. I strongly support the ``Francis X. McCloskey Post Office Building Designation Act'' (H.R. 3379), renaming the United states Post Office located in downtown Bloomington, Indiana, after former Congressman McCloskey. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1939, McCloskey attended high school in Norristown, PA, and entered the Air Force immediately after graduation. After honorably serving his country, McCloskey attended Indiana University, where the received both his undergraduate degree and a Doctorate of Jurisprudence. He then settled down in Bloomington and began his service to both the state of Indiana and our Nation in a most distinguished manner, beginning with his ten-year term as mayor of the city of Bloomington. McCloskey had the highest of aspirations, and was eventually elected to the U.S.House of Representatives in 1982, serving a 6-term career as U.S. Representative from the 8th Congressional District of Indiana. During his tenure in the House of Representatives, Frank McCloskey became highly involved in the Balkan crisis, introducing several pieces of legislation seeking to avert a humanitarian disaster in the former Yugoslav republics. In the years following his Congressional service, Frank drew upon those experiences in foreign relations and human rights by pursuing formal training in Balkan studies and serving as a mediator in negotiations over territorial disputes in Bosnia. As a result of his dedication and tireless efforts, McCloskey was awarded by being named Director of Kosovo Programs for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Mr. Speaker and my esteemed colleagues, please join me in honoring and recognizing the service and commitment that Congressman Frank McCloskey gave to his fellow Hoosiers, the American people, and the international community. It is only fitting that we dedicate a last memorial by renaming the Post Office in downtown Bloomington, Indiana, after a man who helped change the course of history and served the public with distinction. Please join me in supporting the ``Francis X. McCloskey Post Office Building Designation Act.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, it was my pleasure to serve in the Congress of the United States for 6 years when Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. When Ronald Reagan became President, the economy was heading in the wrong direction. Early in his administration, we went into a recession which was caused by his predecessor, and he pushed through the Congress very large tax cuts which led to the economic recovery that started the last part of his administration and went on for well over a decade, 14, 15 years. Ronald Reagan was a very affable man, is a very affable man, was a very kind and generous man, a very understanding man, one who had a big heart and who really cared about America. Many people in his administration took issue with him when he decided to take on the Soviet Union. When he was about to make his speech talking about the Soviet Union being an evil empire, many people in the State Department cringed and said, my God, Mr. President, you cannot say that. Nevertheless, he did, because the Soviet Union held so many millions of people under bondage, and the captive nations of Eastern Europe applauded what he said. When he stood before the Berlin Wall and said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' I remember listening to that and thinking that is a great thing to say, Mr. President; but it will not happen in my lifetime. Yet I was in Namibia when they had the special elections over there, and I went into a German beer garden, and everybody was celebrating. They were raising their steins and dancing, and I said what in the world is going on, and they said do you not know, the Berlin Wall is coming down. The hair on my head and the back of my neck started to rise because I knew that Ronald Reagan got that job done. He raised the stakes against the Soviet Union, with the Soviet Union. They had 50,000 T-55 tanks that started rusting away because he built up the American defenses so high that they could not keep pace, and their economy could not deal with the problem. So their whole economy started to collapse; and as a result, the Soviet Union collapsed. So Ronald Reagan, when he was President, brought this economy back from the ashes of disaster to where it went on for years and years and years in the right direction. He destroyed, I believe personally, the Soviet Union, along with Lech Walesa and the Pope, by putting pressure on the Soviet Union and Mr. Gorbachev and his predecessors until they just fell apart. So I was very, very disappointed when I saw that CBS was going to do a miniseries denigrating this great President, this great man, especially at a time when he cannot defend himself. He is suffering from Alzheimers; and his beautiful wife, Nancy Reagan, whom I had a chance to get to know a little bit when she was in the White House, has to live with these horrible things that are being said about her husband, and she cannot do anything about it. Well, we in the Congress that served with President Ronald Reagan know better. He was a great President. He was a great man. He was a humanitarian. He was a visionary, and he was a man who when he said something he meant it and everybody knew he meant it, and for them to try to destroy his memory is something I do not think we should tolerate. I would like to just say that Peggy Noonan, who worked in the White House with Ronald Reagan, was one of his speech writers. She wrote a book that was called ``When Character Was King,'' and I wish all of the people who criticized Ronald Reagan and participated in this CBS miniseries will read that book because, if they read that book, they are going to see what the man was really like. He was a great man. He is a great man, and his legacy and his memory should not be tarnished by a bunch of trash being put out by CBS. I understand they have pulled that miniseries, and it is not going to be on the network now; but they said that they are going to sell it, I guess, or use it in one of their other areas like ``Showtime,'' and it will be shown as, I guess, a made-for-television movie. I want all my friends to know that I watch ``Showtime,'' and I pay for ``Showtime,'' but I want to say to my friends, if they put that trash on ``Showtime,'' and they have a right to do it under the first amendment, but if they put that trash on ``Showtime,'' I will tell all of my friends and people across this Nation they ought to drop it because that is not the kind of thing you do to a great man like Ronald Reagan who served his country so well and did so much, not only for America but for the whole world.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 302. I also want to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution that expresses the sense of Congress welcoming President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to the United States on October 31, 2003. Taiwan is a beacon of liberty and democracy in a region of the world where human rights and personal freedoms are routinely denied, and I believe that this Chamber should recognize Taiwan's achievements and congratulate President Chen on his outstanding leadership. I ask my colleagues to consider the following facts: Taiwan has become one of the world's freest nations, and is now one of the most successful models of rapid reform in the region. Fifty years ago, Taiwan was a closed authoritarian society with no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, and no right to vote. Today, Taiwan is a full- fledged democracy. It has robust political parties, and virtually every office in Taiwan is contested through free and fair elections. Taiwan supports the same democratic, economic and security values, which we as a Nation cherish. Taiwan shares our belief in free-market economics, which has resulted in Taiwan providing its people with one of the highest standards of living in Asia. Furthermore, U.S. strategic interests in the region are closely intertwined with Taiwan's security in the region. In addition, Taiwan and the U.S. share the same respect for human rights. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Chen Shui-bian for receiving the Human Rights Award from the International League for Human Rights. H. Con. Res. 302 provides us with a golden opportunity to affirm our friendship and support for the free people of Taiwan. Because Taiwan is such a steadfast ally of the U.S., I am a proud cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 302. I also wish to thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Wexler, for introducing this resolution and the House Leadership for scheduling a vote on it. I believe that Congress should extend a warm and public welcome to President Chen of Taiwan upon his arrival in the United States on October 31, 2003. President Chen's visit will serve to broaden and deepen the strong alliance between the United States and Taiwan. Also, his visit is of tremendous importance to all Americans who join me in recognizing the value of a longstanding friendship between the U.S. and Taiwan. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this resolution, and I offer a hearty welcome to President Chen and wish him great success upon his visit to the U.S.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, for some time, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), myself and a number of others, Congressmen from the Democrat side, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), our independent Congressman, have been working very hard to make sure that Americans do not pay any more for their pharmaceutical products than they do in other parts of the industrialized world. One of the things we found out when we were doing our investigation was that some of the pharmaceutical products that are sold in Canada sell for one-seventh or one-eighth or one-tenth of what they sell for in the United States. Tamoxifen, for instance, which is one of the drugs of choice for a woman who has breast cancer, costs seven times as much in the United States as it does Canada. That just is not right. Americans should not pay a disproportionate amount of the costs of research and development for a pharmaceutical product or advertising or anything else as they do in other parts of the world. Yet Americans are bearing an undue amount of the burden of producing these products. Toward that end, a number of us have been working to try to get that changed through reimportation of pharmaceutical products from Canada, from Germany, from Spain, from other industrialized nations so that Americans get the benefit of the lower prices. The prices of pharmaceuticals have been rising at about 15 percent a year and Americans simply cannot afford that tremendous amount of increase year after year after year. We have seniors that are going to pharmacies with prescriptions saying, how much is it? If it is too much, they say, well, maybe I'll be back tomorrow. Or maybe they buy half a prescription and they split it in two, and that is not sufficient for the problems that they face. So we have been working on this. We now find that we have a lot of allies in the States around this country. Governor Blagojevich of Illinois, one of our former Democrat colleagues from the Congress, did some research and found out in the State of Illinois for State employees, the State would save $91 million a year in Illinois alone if they went to a reimportation plan. Today, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, a Republican, has said that he is going to look into this to try to do it to save money because New York is strapped for cash. The Governor of Minnesota, a Republican, has said that he is going to do it, and it is going to save tens of millions of dollars for the State of Minnesota. The Governor of Iowa is working on it. The mayor of Springfield, Massachusetts. Mayors in Vermont and across the country, Governors and mayors, are starting to realize that they are strapped for cash and need money to run their governments for fire protection, education, safety and other causes; and they need that money. They either raise it through taxes or find ways to economize in their States and cities. They have found they can save tens of millions of dollars across this country in each city and State by buying pharmaceutical products from outside the United States, the very same products that we buy here, made by the same manufacturers. There is no difference. The only difference is Americans pay six or seven times or as much as 10 times more than they do in other countries. That is not right. There is a groundswell of support to bring about positive change in the cost of pharmaceuticals across this Nation. It is a groundswell that is not going to stop. I would like to say to my friends in the pharmaceutical industry, it is time to sit down and reason with Members of Congress to try to find a solution to this problem rather than have Americans having to import the same products you are selling here in the United States from other countries. It makes no sense for you to sell them to Canada and for us to have to reimport them in order to save the taxpayers, the people of this country, millions of dollars and save the Governors and mayors of the States and cities of this country millions and maybe even billions of dollars. We spend over $200 billion a year for State and Federal employees for their pharmaceutical products, I understand; and it is estimated by experts we can save 30 percent, that is, $60 billion a year could be saved if we had a fair pricing like they do in Canada, Spain, Germany, and elsewhere. That could pay for the Medicare prescription drug program that we have all been talking about. We need to get with the program. The pharmaceutical industry needs to get with the program. We want them to make a profit. We want them to have money for research and development, and we want them to get their tax credits; but we do not want them to burden the American taxpayer with all of these expenses, and that is what is going to happen if we do not deal with this now. I would just like to say once again, Mr. Speaker, if anybody in the pharmaceutical industry is listening, we want to work with you to solve this problem; but one way or another, Americans are going to get a fair price for their pharmaceutical products. If we have to fight for reimportation, we will do it that way; or we will deal with you to do it a better way.