Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from appointing scientists who have conflicts of interest to FDA advisory committees. The amendment does not change current law; it simply makes sure that the FDA is adhering to current law. The FDA is charged with protecting the public health and, to assist with this mission, the FDA relies heavily on advisory committees composed of outside scientists to guide the agency policy on the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices when questions arise regarding those products. While the FDA is not bound by the decisions of these panels, the agency itself calls advisory committees one of its most important resources for helping to regulate the over 150,000 marketed medical products that the FDA oversees. Because of the critically important nature of these committees, there should be no question as to whether the committee members are looking out for the public health. But recent FDA actions have created serious doubts about whether committee members are serving only the public interests and, as a result, industry biases now taint many advisory panel decisions. Over the past few years, the FDA has routinely waived conflict of interest prohibitions and appointed scientists with direct conflicts of interest to serve on these critical public panels. These appointments completely undermine the objectivity of this outside advice and bias the committee's recommendations, which are reached by a vote of the panel members, some of whom have financial ties to the products being reviewed by that very same panel. There have been numerous high-profile examples of this over the past 18 months. Just this past April, for example, the FDA convened an advisory committee to examine whether or not to allow silicon breast implants back on the market. That committee contained a scientist who had just recently made a promotional video for a manufacturer of those implants. Two months prior to that, the FDA convened an advisory panel to review the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors, drugs like Vioxx, which have caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes. Ten of the 32 scientists on that panel had direct financial links to the manufacturers of those drugs. When it came time for the committee to make its recommendations, those ties made all the difference. Without the votes of the ten conflicted scientists, two of those three drugs and the Cox-2 inhibitor class would have been voted down by the panel, instead of receiving the very narrow support and approval they did as a result of those conflicted scientists' votes. Last year, when there was a huge controversy around the link between antidepressants and suicide, especially among young people, the FDA convened an advisory panel to make recommendations on how the agency should handle those drugs. Three of the 11 scientists on that committee had been paid consultants to the manufacturers of those antidepressants. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Advisory panels on OxyContin, oncology drugs, even over-the-counter athletes' foot creams, all had scientists with conflicts of interest. Almost every advisory committee meeting begins with an FDA statement waiving the conflicts of interest of some of the scientists on that panel. If you think that scientists who rely on drug companies for their financial wherewithal are going to recommend that the FDA take action that will harm the company that is paying them, then you are living in a fantasy world. The FDA claims that it cannot find enough qualified scientists without conflicts of interest to fill its advisory committees. This statement is laughable on its surface and an insult to the thousands of independent doctors across this country. It is also not accurate. As the medical journal, The Lancet, recently editorialized, ``It is hard to believe that in a country with 125 medical schools, not to mention the pool of international experts, the FDA cannot find experts who do not have financial ties with companies whose products are under review.'' Of course, the FDA can find scientists without conflicts of interest. They just do not want to do it, and they are not doing it. Advisory committees are critical parts of the FDA's regulatory scheme, and they should be free of any direct conflict of interest. Without this, there is no way to assure the public that a panel's recommendations are fair and unbiased and in the interest of the public health. After one of the most tumultuous years in the FDA's history, this amendment is needed to restore the public's confidence and integrity that has been lost in the FDA's advisory system. A wide range of public health groups support this amendment, and numerous recent editorials have called for this kind of reform. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I frankly find the arguments that have been presented against this amendment, in a word, incredible. They seem to me to be coming from the entities in our country, in our economy, that need regulation. It seems as if the words were written by them. We have 125 medical schools in this country. We have a bevy of expert scientists who are capable of dealing with these kinds of issues. For anyone to stand on the floor of this House and say that you cannot construct a panel, an advisory panel to advise the Food and Drug Administration with regard to the safety and security of a particular drug without putting on that panel one-third of the members who are conflicted in their interests, who are being paid by the economic entities that are about to be regulated, or should be regulated, or who have done commercial advertisements for some of those entities, that you cannot construct a panel without having a third of the members with that kind of conflict of interest, is the most absurd statement I think I have ever heard uttered on the floor of this House. We have scientific bodies throughout our government and throughout the private sector, throughout the National Institutes of Health, throughout any number of scientific organizations, who put together panels; and they are never obliged to include within those panels people who are conflicted in their interests with regard to the decisions that are going to be made by those panels. It is ridiculous, absurd to stipulate that you cannot construct a panel without having people with a conflict of interest. I am just asking the Members of this body to tell the Food and Drug Administration that when you draw together a panel, do the same thing that other regulatory bodies do. Make sure that among the members of those panels, there is no one who is conflicted in their interests. No one who is being monetarily compensated by the entity that is being regulated; in the case of the drug companies no one who is getting money from the drug companies, no one who is on the payroll of drug companies. That is all you have to do. It is a very simple thing. There are thousands of people to reach out to who are capable and qualified to come onto those panels and make those kinds of decisions. To say that you cannot put together a panel without including in it one-third of the members who are conflicted in their interests is absolutely ridiculous. And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to do something that is in the best interests of the people of our Nation. Let us have a Food and Drug Administration that is actually carrying out its regulatory authorities as this Congress set them up to do. Let us have an FDA that actually regulates the entities. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. That is correct.

Mr. HINCHEY. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is correct. This would simply be for 1 year. It is a trial, in effect; and we ought to put it in place.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me express my appreciation to the leader on our side on this subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). This is her first year as the minority rank on this subcommittee, and she is doing an outstandingly good job, and we all very much appreciate the work that she is doing. I also want to express my appreciation to my chairman. He also is doing a very good job, particularly under a very difficult set of circumstances; and those difficult set of circumstances are, particularly, the allocation that this subcommittee has been afforded. But that, of course, is universally true. All of these subcommittees have been afforded very small, ineffective allocations, ineffective to do all the things that need to be done. But, nevertheless, in spite of that, I think the chairman has done a good job. There is one aspect of this bill, however, to which I would like to draw attention, because it is an aspect of the bill that is entirely deficient and not only deficient but, because of these deficiencies, the result is a potential for serious harm to a large number of American citizens. That is the way in which the Food and Drug Administration is treated in this legislation, and the fact that the Congress has not provided to the FDA the kinds of authority that it needs in order to protect the general public against the marketing of prescription drugs in ways that are causing serious harm to large numbers of the American people. Now, recently we have had two experiences, that is, the Nation has had two experiences, with drugs that have been very difficult and dangerous. The first is antidepressants and the way that they have been marketed. They have been marketed largely to people who were targeted for marketing off-label. A lot of the people who they were marketed to and who used them were young folks, young people, teenagers. The effect of these antidepressants on young folks, youngsters, teenagers, people in their early 20s particularly, has been to engender in them a deep sense of depression which, in many cases, has led to suicide; and it has taken us a long time to get attention focused on that problem. Another example is the so-called Cox-2 inhibitors, or prescriptions such as Vioxx. Vioxx has presented a major, major problem to consumers across the country. It is likely that several hundred thousand people, as a result of the use of Vioxx, have fallen into conditions where their health has been seriously injured; and it may be, and probably is, that more than 100,000 people suffered death as a result of the use of this prescription drug Vioxx. Now, that comes about as a result of the failure of this Congress to give the FDA the kind of authority it needs to deal with the drug companies; and I later in the debate on this legislation will offer two amendments to deal with this problem. But, right now, I want to draw the attention of the Members of this House to this issue. This is a serious issue which affects the health and safety of the American people in material and very dramatic ways. It is an issue that is causing the unnecessary death of large numbers of Americans, and it is an issue that we have not dealt with and should deal with, and if we do address it properly, it will alleviate this condition and stop placing so many of American citizens in the kind of dangerous, desperate circumstances that they have fallen into which have caused serious injury to their health and death in large numbers of people. So what we need to do is to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to deal with the pharmaceutical companies in the way that any regulatory agency would deal with the entity that it is regulating. For example, in the case of Vioxx, once that drug got on the market and it became clear that people were being injured as a result of exposure to it, and the off-label marketing of that drug particularly, once that became clear, the Food and Drug Administration was not in a position to tell the drug company that they had to engage in an educational program which would ensure that people to whom the drug would be dangerous would not be using it. They could not order the pharmaceutical company to do anything with regard to the labeling on that drug. They had to negotiate with the company. So these are some of the major issues that we are facing, one of the major deficiencies in this legislation that needs to be addressed, and I will be offering two amendments later on in the debate, and I hope that the Members of this Congress will embrace those amendments.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, last night I went before the Committee on Rules to seek the ability to offer an amendment to the bill today that would have given the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, two critically important new authorities to improve the agency's drug safety operations. It would have given FDA the authority to require drug companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and the authority to mandate changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs. But the Committee on Rules would not allow the amendment. Almost every week we hear about another unsafe drug and the significant harm that those drugs are doing to millions of people. Yet Congress has done nothing. The most recent case is the cholesterol- lowering drug Crestor, which a recent study found is significantly more likely than other drugs in its class to cause muscle deterioration that can lead to kidney disease and kidney failure. Flip through the headlines of the last few months, and we will see many more examples. Of the two most significant drug failures of the last year, they are antidepressants and Vioxx. For years, evidence was building that antidepressants seem to cause an increased rate of suicide among users, particularly young people. The FDA, however, failed to heed this evidence and delayed taking any action for years because the agency said it did not have enough data to do anything about these reports of suicide. The reason for this was FDA could not order the drug companies to conduct further clinical trials after a drug is approved. When the agency finally did have enough data back in 2003, it first sought to hide it but eventually told antidepressant makers that there needed to be a warning on suicide. However, it took more than 9 months before that warning was placed on any drug label because the FDA had to negotiate with the drug companies over the label's wording. Patients went 9 extra months without knowing all the risks. Vioxx was finally removed from the market last September because it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Notably, it was the drug manufacturer, Merck, that removed the drug, not the FDA. An estimated 90,000 to 140,000 Americans suffered heart attacks and strokes as a result of Vioxx. Of these, 30 to 40 percent, or as many as 60,000 people, probably died. Dr. David Graham, a heroic doctor at the FDA, put these numbers into perspective when he testified before the Senate Finance Committee last November. He compared the number of heart attacks and strokes caused by Vioxx to plane crashes. Dr. Graham stated the Vioxx numbers are the equivalent of two to four airplane crashes every week, week in and week out, week after week, for the past 5 years. If it really were planes that were crashing, then the Congress would be doing something about it. Yet we have done nothing to empower the FDA to prevent another Vioxx. FDA knew about the dangers of Vioxx more than 5 years ago, and in 2002 the agency decided Vioxx's label needed to have a warning about the increased risk of heart disease. Yet it took nearly 14 months before that warning was added to Vioxx's label because the FDA again had to negotiate the wording with the drug company. FDA could not simply tell Merck that its label must say Vioxx causes increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Nor could FDA order Merck to conduct a new clinical trial about Vioxx's safety when the FDA learned of other studies indicating safety problems. My amendment would change that. These commonsense changes are nearly universally accepted by patient safety organizations, endorsed by nearly every major medical journal, and even by a few drug companies. FDA's own director of the Office of New Drugs has said she believes it would be extremely helpful for the agency to have these powers and authorities. They are also endorsed on a bipartisan basis, including by Senators Charles Grassley and Thad Cochran, who have cosponsored a bill that would do almost exactly what I am proposing today. These changes cannot wait to happen. They cannot wait any longer. Delay is going to cost lives, many lives, tens of thousands of lives in all probability. The amendment should have been made in order by the Committee on Rules, and I am asking the House now today to make this amendment in order. This amendment needs to be considered by the full House of Representatives, and it needs to be considered for no other reason than because by not considering it, we are placing hundreds of thousands of people across this country in dire jeopardy. We need a Food and Drug Administration that can deal with the drug companies and with the medical manufacturing establishments that it allegedly regulates, deal with them in an effective way, so that we can have true regulation on behalf of the safety and security of the American people, which we do not have today and which this Congress has refused to bring about. So I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring this amendment to the floor of the House. I want this amendment considered, and I hope that every Member of the House will see it his or her duty to adopt this amendment today. Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that this issue is controversial. I know that there are Members of the House who really do not want to address it this afternoon. But we should put that aside. We should put it aside because the safety and security of the American people are at stake here. The Food and Drug Administration was established by this Congress in order to ensure that pharmaceuticals and subsequently various forms of medical devices and other materials which are used by people who are ill, that those devices and materials can be used by people in a way that is safe and secure and sound. But the fact of the matter is that that is not happening, and we have the ocular proof in front of us every single day. I mentioned a few moments ago the situation of antidepressants. These antidepressants came on the market without proper, careful review; and in addition to that, they began to be marketed for off-label uses. As a result, large numbers of teenagers, young people, people in their twenties, began to use them when they should not have been using them, and the usage of those antidepressants induced suicidal potential in those people, and many of them carried it out. Many, many people took their lives in direct relationship to the use of those antidepressant drugs. When that became apparent, the Food and Drug Administration was not able to deal effectively with the drug manufacturers because they did not have the authority. They do not have the authority to tell the drug manufacturers that when a problem becomes evident after the drug is on the market that the drug company should, at the very least, change the label, put information on the label that tells people this kind of experience has been shown to happen by this group of people so that people can be warned about it and therefore not be likely to take it and so that doctors can understand that and not be likely to prescribe it. That simple act would save the lives of tens of thousands of people. Failing to do it almost inevitably is going to cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, because it will not be much longer before we see another antidepressant situation or Cox-2 inhibitor situation, Vioxx situation, come on the market if we do not change the rules, if we do not give the FDA the power to deal effectively with these drug manufacturers. The Vioxx case is a very clear, strong case in point. After a certain period of time when that drug was on the market, it became obvious that people who were taking it were suffering strokes and/or heart attacks. The FDA, when it became aware of that, was not able to do anything effectively about it. They did not even ask the drug company to take the drug off the market. Finally, Merck came to the table and properly removed Vioxx from the market, but only after hundreds of thousands of people in this country were seriously affected, and we estimate at least 60,000 people lost their lives, and the number may be higher than that; and all of that began to get the attention of the press and people across the country began to understand it. Now, for God's sake, what are we doing here? Are we just going to stand by idly while these circumstances continue to happen, while more and more drugs come on the market, week after week, month after month, while more and more people take them without understanding the implications and more and more people suffer, even die, as a result of that? This Congress has the responsibility to act. We need to make that Food and Drug Administration live up to its responsibilities. And by simply saying in a technical way that, no, we cannot do it today, that does not meet the need, not by any stretch of the imagination. This amendment needs to come to the floor, and this amendment needs to get the kind of attention that it properly deserves on behalf of the safety and security and the lives of the American people and to be adopted. So I move the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to embrace it today. Vote for it; support it. Let us pass it this afternoon. Point of Order

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, is there anyone on the other side who wishes to speak on the amendment?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HINCHEY. I very much thank the gentleman for his leadership in the committee, and I thank him for his response. There is widespread support for the Hudson River cleanup project, and I know the people I represent will be relieved to hear the chairman clarify that this report will in no way delay phase I or phase II of the Hudson River PCB cleanup. I would suggest that if the study does proceed, it should be focused on new developments and should address the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Interior subcommittee in a colloquy dealing with some language in the committee report requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to fund a national Academy of Sciences study concerning the Hudson River. The language was added to the report unfortunately without the knowledge of those of us who represent the Hudson River area in New York State. More than a decade has already been spent studying cleanup alternatives for the Hudson River. Therefore, the request for this new study raises concerns. Those of us who live in the region would like clarification as to what the impact of this new study would be. From what I understand, the report language in no way is intended to delay, stop, or otherwise disrupt either phase I or phase II of the PCB cleanup planned for the Hudson River which is slated to begin in the summer of 2006. Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my friend, for allowing me this time. The purpose of these amendments, this one and the one previous to it, in part at least, is to demonstrate how misaligned the priorities of this Congress have become and how far we have devolved, how we have regressed from a period in the 1970s when the Clean Water Act was passed and this Congress demonstrated its concern and understanding of the environmental needs of our Nation. In the last 3 years, this fund has been cut by almost 50 percent; and prior to those 3 years, it had been cut previously, leaving the States with little or no money to deal with the issue of clean water. Thirty years ago, we recognized that the waters of this country should be swimable, fishable and drinkable. The waters of this country are becoming less so in each of those three categories as a result of the mismanagement of funding by this Congress, by the devolution of our philosophy in this Congress, and by the priorities set by the leadership of this Congress. People in this country are experiencing conditions that are less safe, less secure, and less healthy as a result of the mismanagement of the people's funds. My colleagues are more concerned with cutting taxes for millionaires than providing safety and security and good drinking water for the American people. These priorities must change.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Arthur E. Weintraub for his distinguished professional career, spanning nearly five decades. As Art prepares to retire from his position as President of the Northern Metropolitan Hospital Association, I would like to recognize and thank him for his tremendous leadership in the Hudson Valley region of New York, including his more than 23 years of service to this important regional hospital organization. Prior to this position, Art worked as Executive Director of the Hudson Valley Health Systems Agency, and earlier as Senior Vice-President of Mid-Hudson Pattern for Progress. Before moving to the Hudson Valley, Art also worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and later held a senior planning position with the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. Art's broad expertise in regional planning and health care policy and management have made him an invaluable resource to our region and to the many hospitals and communities that are served by Normet. Over the course of more than two decades, Art has skillfully balanced the interests of our local community hospitals in a seven-county area of the Hudson Valley, working to find common ground among institutions with a wide array of challenges and in some cases, competition among themselves. Through Art's careful and persistent efforts, Normet has served as an effective advocate to help our public hospitals meet serious challenges and maintain their financial stability in a quickly changing and demanding environment. Under Art's leadership, Normet has promoted important public policy initiatives that improve and strengthen our regional hospitals, helping to ensure the continued availability of quality health care services for the fast growing Hudson Valley region. Art has received numerous honors over his career including being named a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow for study at Princeton University in 1977. He has been honored by the American Red Cross, the Arthritis Foundation, the Greater Hudson Valley Family Health Center, area chambers of commerce and a host of community service organizations. In 1997, he was selected national chairman of the U.S. Conference of Metropolitan Hospital Associations, and in 2004 received the Award of Distinction as the Hudson Valley Healthcare Executive of the Year. In addition to his leadership at Normet, Art has volunteered a great deal of time and energy to improving our region. Recently, Art was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs to an advisory panel for the VA Campuses at Montrose and Castle Point. Over the years, Art has served in a variety of community service positions, including as president of the Newburgh Consolidated District Board of Education and as co-chair of the Community Partnership for a Healthy Westchester Task Force. He has served as an officer on the governing boards of numerous organizations and institutions, including St. Luke's Hospital, the American Health Planning Association, Westchester Health Foundation, Mid-Hudson Pattern for Progress, Pace University Nursing School and Law School Health Advisory Boards, Business School Advisory Board of SUNY New Paltz, Hudson Valley Technology Development Center, Greater Hudson Valley Coordinating Council, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Management Advisory Committee, Orange County Charter Review Commission, Orange County Child Study Center Advisory Board and Congregation Agudas Israel. He is also a Charter Member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Art received his Bachelor's Degree from Hunter College, and a Masters Degree from New York University's Graduate School of Public Administration. He also completed the Executive Program in Health Policy and Management at Harvard University's School of Public Health. Art currently is an adjunct professor at the New School University's Graduate School of Management, and has held faculty appointments at New York Medical College and Vassar College. He has had numerous articles on health and environmental policy issues published in professional journals. In addition to these numerous professional credentials, it must be noted that Art is personally regarded as a friend to many of us in the Hudson Valley. He inspires great loyalty in the members of his association and affection from the countless others with whom he has worked over the years, including many of my colleagues in the New York congressional delegation. He will be sorely missed by those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate Art Weintraub and his family on his upcoming retirement after so many years of service to the Hudson Valley Region. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my very best wishes to Art for a healthy and happy retirement along with my deep appreciation for his vision, dedication and hard work over his impressive career.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of the Armenian Genocide--one of the most horrific tragedies of the 20th century. Beginning on April 24, 1915, leaders of the Ottoman Empire began murdering thousands of Armenian people. By 1923, the number of Armenians murdered was over 1.5 million. Yet, in spite of irrefutable evidence, the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey have consistently refused to officially acknowledge that the Armenians were victims of genocide. The Armenian Genocide is a historical event that cannot be denied or forgotten. It is vital for Turkey to recognize that this tragedy took place on its soil. Turkey should follow the example of Germany in its swift commendation and acknowledgement of the Holocaust. It is also equally vital for the United States to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide, just as many other governments have. In 2000 the European Parliament officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. The following year the French Parliament recognized it as well. Many attempts have also been made by the U.S. Congress to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. These attempts, however, have been scuttled by successive administrations for fear of disrupting our strategic relationship with Turkey. While I certainly value Turkey's friendship, as a world leader, the U.S. must officially acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Not doing so sets an extremely poor example for the rest of the world and denies the victims of this horrific tragedy the proper reverence they deserve.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, at no time in our nation's history have Americans been more connected to the world than we are now--by trade and finance, media and culture, crisis and conflict. Yet there is mounting evidence that today's young students are ill equipped by our education system to serve themselves, or their country, in the international arena. It's no surprise that Bill Gates recently termed America's high schools as ``obsolete'' and as relevant as a 1950s mainframe computer. A recent Gallup poll of 13- to 17-year-olds revealed that less than half could link Napoleon, Churchill and Indira Gandhi to their native countries. One in three could not identify Hitler with Germany. A Stanford University study notes that, while high school attendance broadened to near-universal enrollment over the last century, ``students'' ignorance of history has marched stolidly in place.'' Retired IBM Chairman Lou Gerstner noted this perspective when addressing the National Education Summit: ``Countries that have better education systems have stronger economies and are tougher competitors in the worldwide marketplace. America, therefore, is not so much becoming a nation of haves and have-nots as we are a nation of educated and uneducated.'' I therefore am pleased to honor one organization dedicated to broadening the international focus of our education system, the American Forum for Global Education, which celebrates its 35th anniversary this year. The American Forum has been working to close the ignorance and apathy gap for hundreds of thousands of K-12 students for more than a generation. They have led the nation in shaping American teaching systems and providing opportunities for worldwide interaction and learning. The American Forum has developed programs in partnership with the United Nations and the U.S. Departments of State and Education; other programs have dispatched scores of teachers and students to China, Turkey, Morocco, Vietnam and other important but relatively neglected outposts. The American Forum's China Project is an excellent example of the organization's commitment to promoting a 21st century education. It addresses, in part, a Christian Science Monitor editorial citing Chinese as ``a critical language . . . Without an emerging generation of Chinese speakers, the U.S. faces growing holes in intelligence gathering, trade relations, and cultural understanding.'' Chinese is the mother tongue to 874 million people (compared to 341 million who speak English), but far too few American children study it. China Project participants are notable exceptions. Vanessa Baehr- Jones, a Tufts University graduate who majored in Chinese, is now looking for a government position to utilize her second-language skills. ``Without the (American Forum's) China trip,'' she writes, ``I would never have ended up studying the Chinese language.'' Patrick Franco, an Oxford University graduate, credits the program with his interest in ``a career in diplomacy or business that would offer further exposure to China.'' Dozens of other young adults who have benefited from American Forum programs here and in far-flung regions overseas now are benefiting the nation, as well as themselves. For 35 years, the American Forum for Global Education has led the way, and I applaud them.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this budget of course is a clear statement of the economic objectives of the people who have put it together, and it is illustrative of where they want this country to be over the course of the next year. In understanding that, it is important for us to look back at previous budgets that they have constructed and the effect that those budgets have had on the economy of our country. We have here in Washington today, and have for the last 4 years, a monolithic government. In other words, the Republican Party controls both Houses of the Congress, the House and the Senate, and the White House. So they are in complete control of the budget operation, how we take in money, and how we spend it, allegedly, on behalf of the American people. Let us just take a look at the effects of their budgets and economic policies over the course of the last several years. First of all, the economy has endured the most protracted job slump since the 1930s. Last year we had some increase in jobs. Government payrolls, in fact, have expanded. And it is interesting, because our colleagues in the Republican Party talk about shrinking government. But what their budget policies have managed to do is to expand government. At the same time, there were 544,000 fewer private nonfarm payroll jobs and 2.8 million fewer manufacturing jobs. Their budget policies have cost us nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs over the last several years. The official unemployment rate is now 5.4 percent. But many more people than that would like to go to work if there was an opportunity for them to do so. When you include the 5 million people who have stopped looking but who would take a job if one were available to them and the 4.3 million people who have been forced to settle for part-time employment, when you consider all of those, the unemployment rate jumps to 9.3 percent. Four years ago America enjoyed a $5.6 trillion 10-year projected budget surplus. Today our country is facing a $3.3 trillion 10-year projected budget deficit. That is a heroic accomplishment over the last 5 years by these Republican budgets, nearly $9 trillion in negative results. The public debt has almost doubled and will probably reach $5 trillion before the end of this year, all of that as a result of these budgets, and this particular budget that we are addressing tonight continues these same policies. One consequence of the low national savings associated with large budget deficits is that we are running now a very large trade deficit. In January, for example, the last month for which we have figures, it was $58.3 billion in trade deficit just for the month of January. Last year we accomplished a record trade deficit. The trade deficit for the year 2004 was a record $617 billion. This budget continues those same policies. But those deficits are unsustainable. Our economy will not survive if we continue along the same road. American workers are becoming more productive, but that productivity as a result of these budgets is not showing up in their wages. Private nonfarm industries' wages have fallen .6 percent, after being adjusted for inflation. This year, this past year alone, typical households will make $1,500 less than they did 4 years ago as a result of the economic policies reflected in this and the previous budgets of the Republican Party. Since November 2001, output per hour has increased from the average worker by an average of 3.9 percent per year. Over that same period, the hourly wages and benefits of the workers producing that increased output has increased by only 1.6 percent per year. The current account deficit, which measures the amount we have to borrow from the rest of the world to finance our international trade imbalance, reached a record of over $600 billion. Increasingly, foreign central banks purchase U.S. treasury securities, and that means that we are increasingly deeper and deeper in debt to other foreign countries. That is also a result of these budgets. If foreigners become nervous about the falling value of the dollar, they could stop buying our treasury debt, which would cause the dollar to plunge. The consequence could be an international financial crisis, sharply higher inflation and interest rates, and also stop any economic recovery. So the debate today on this budget resolution is critically important. The question is, are we going to continue the policies that have put us in this very difficult position where we find ourselves today as a result of the previous four budgets passed by this monolithic government, or are we finally going to wake up, realize the consequences of these policies and begin to take a new course? That vote will come tomorrow.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues attention an anti-secession bill that is currently under consideration in The People's Republic of China's National People's Congress Standing Committee. Although the language of the draft of this law has not been made public, many Taiwanese are troubled. They are concerned that if such legislation is passed it may lead to future military action against them if Taipei does not succumb to Beijing's One China principle. This proposal should concern the United States because of our commitment to help preserve a democratic Taiwan. However, Beijing should be commended for its recent conciliatory gestures that appear aimed at lowering tensions across the Taiwan Strait. These include the first non-stop, cross-strait charter flights between the mainland and Taiwan for the February Lunar New Year holiday and the dispatch of two senior Chinese officials to the funeral of Koo Chen-fu who headed Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation. Yet the impending law could prove counterproductive to these actions in several ways. The proposed law could result in China taking military action against Taiwan if it appears to Beijing that Taiwan is moving toward independence. Most Taiwanese would like to peacefully co-exist with the mainland, if creative ways to do so can be negotiated between Beijing and Taipei. The status of hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese living in China could also become uncertain as a result of this legislation. Some have questioned whether this means that statements interpreted as supporting Taiwan could be the legal basis for charges of treason or other criminal actions--a scenario causing deep concern in the Taiwanese business community on the mainland. Furthermore, the law has received a negative reaction from the citizens of Taiwan and could lead to increasing support for the very independence moves it seeks to deter. This legislation will not encourage negotiations that are needed to attain a peaceful resolution to tensions in the Taiwan Strait. President Bush clearly stated that the basic tenets of his foreign policy will be the expansion of democracy and freedom across the globe. It is my hope that the Bush Administration will encourage China not to pass the proposed antisecession law.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill and the rule really missed the point. The point is that we are experiencing here in this House and across this country limitations on political debate, and that is the way this rule is structured, to limit political debate so that the American people do not understand what is going on. For more than 2 decades now, the Republican Party has sought to consolidate the media in America across the board, and they have done so also to limit debate by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine. This bill makes no mention whatsoever of the link between media consolidation and the rising number of indecency complaints. What do we have today as a result of the Republican Party's consolidation of the media in America? Five companies own the broadcast networks and 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks. They produce three-quarters of all prime time programming. They control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. These same companies that own the Nation's most popular newspapers and networks also own 85 percent of the top 20 Internet news sites. Two-thirds of America's independent newspapers have been lost. According to the Department of Justice's ``Merger Guidelines,'' every local newspaper market in the United States today is highly concentrated as a result of actions begun under President Reagan in 1987 and that continue today under President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership of this House. One-third of America's independent TV stations have vanished. There has been a 34 percent decline in the number of radio station owners since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act under the leadership of this House. There has also been a severe decline in minority-owned broadcasters. As the major networks have been allowed greater vertical integration, the percentage of independently produced new programming on broadcast networks has declined from 87.5 percent in 1990 to 22.5 percent in 2002. It is barely one-fourth of what it was 15 years ago, independent programming, thanks to the leadership of this House and Republican Presidents. Almost 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared: ``The widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public; that a free press is a condition of a free society.'' We no longer have a free press or free media in our country, as a result of the conscious, intentional consolidation of the media that has been authorized and orchestrated by the Republican leadership in this House and successive Republican Presidents. I have no doubt that every Member of this body would agree that the court sentiments that I mention here today should hold true, but it is also true that we are not allowed to debate this point and bring it up on the floor of the House. We have a lot to do here, and our Republican colleagues are not allowing it to be done. Free press is essential to a free and open society.