Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Record show that on Thursday, July 17, 2003, during consideration of the FY04 Appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior, H.R. 2691, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on the amendment of Mr. Udall of New Mexico to prevent the use of funds to finalize Bush Administration regulations that would revise requirements for scientific evaluation and public involvement during the development of forest management plans, when it was my intention to oppose the amendment.

I am a strong supporter of multi-use forest plans and had voted for this amendment under the mistaken impression that this was the amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado. I am pleased that despite my erroneous vote, the amendment of Mr. Udall of New

Mexico was defeated so that I did not need to pursue any legislative remedies to overturn it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend all 10 recipients of the 2003 All-America City Award, and Representative Hayes for bringing forth this resolution in their honor. I am especially supportive of this resolution because one of the honored recipients, Marquette County, Michigan, hails from my district of northern Michigan, lying on the southern shore of Lake Superior in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

On June 14, 2003, Marquette County was selected as one of 10 communities in the United States to receive an All-America City designation from the National Civic League at a ceremony in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say thank you and pay tribute to one of the hardest working public employees ever seen in my 1st Congressional District.

Barbara Serena retired from the Dickinson-Iron County Health Department in June of this year, after almost 26 years serving the people of this part of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as a public health officer and administrator.

In this capacity, Barbara developed a reputation for hard work that would put even our Congressional colleagues to shame--spending seven day weeks and fourteen to sixteen hour days when needed, in her devotion to the principle that public health services are critically important to the local communities she served.

Barbara was born where she and her husband Terry Shea now live, in Stambaugh, Michigan. She grew up in Watersmeet, about thirty miles west of Stambaugh. Her work ethic developed naturally, under the tutelage and guidance of her father, Ferdinand and mother Margaret Serena. Ferdinand Serena was a longtime U.S. Forest Service employee and the family had deep roots in the Upper Peninsula. Margaret Serena still lives in Iron River, Michigan.

After graduating from the University of Michigan with a B.A. in 1960, Barbara received her Masters in Social Work in 1962 and Masters in Public Health in 1969, both from the University of Michigan. She was a doctoral candidate from 1975 to 1977 at the Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

From 1962 to 1965, Barbara was a social worker with the State of Michigan Department of Social Welfare in Oakland County, and from 1965 to 1968, she was a clinical social work supervisor at the Hawthorne Center in Northville, Michigan, run by the State of Michigan Department of Mental Health.

She moved to New Jersey and became a social work coordinator at the University of Medicine and Dentistry and New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey in 1970. She remained there while studying at Columbia University until her return to her home in the U.P. in 1977.

From 1977 until her retirement this year, Barbara Serena served as a public health administrator with the Dickinson-Iron District Health Department in Stambaugh, Michigan. From August 1995 to August 1996, she was the Department's Acting Health Officer. In September 1996 she was named the Department's Health Officer, serving in that capacity until 2002.

Barbara's return to the Upper Peninsula was fortunate for her community and also for Terry Shea, whom she met in 1980 in a crowded restaurant when a friend asked Terry if Barbara could join him at his table. Terry was at that time working Ted Kennedy's presidential campaign in what was then the 11th Congressional District of Michigan.

Throughout Terry and Barbara's long and happy marriage, they have both continued to work in their faith community for families and for the betterment of their community as a whole. It is fair to say that for Barbara, retirement will be as busy as her life has been so far, although both Terry and Barbara hope to have more time for travel. They will intend to remain actively involved in the community and faith based volunteerism that has been a hallmark of their lives.

When I asked Terry what was the most significant thing people in the area think of when they think of Barbara, he said ``Her work.'' That is a lasting legacy, and one that is far from completed.

I congratulate Barbara on her many years of service in public health and wish her well in her retirement. The strength of my northern district is built on the daily efforts of people like Barbara, even though she stands in a special category. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in this special tribute to a very special woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a Michigan National Guardsman who demonstrated exceptional bravery and prudent skill during the war in Iraq.

Major James Ewald, a Michigan native and pilot in the Michigan Air National Guard 110th Fighter wing, acted decisively when his Close Air Support aircraft was struck by a surface-to-air missile while flying over Baghdad on April 8, 2003. He had been part of a mission to provide critical intelligence about Iraqi ambush when the enemy missile left his aircraft barely flyable.

Instead of succumbing to what could have been deemed a hopeless situation, Major Ewald expertly flew the wounded aircraft for 12 more minutes and completed vital battle damage checklists, identified critical aircraft system operations, made tentative plans for aircraft recovery, and gathered information about threats affecting future Close Air Support operations. His fourteen years of military experience and natural abilities allowed him to parachute out of the faltering aircraft injury free. He then strategically hid amongst the thick Iraqi foliage from imminent capture until U.S. Army forces rescued him fifteen minutes later.

I am extremely proud of Major Ewald for his service to our nation. He has shown courage and dedication to performing the job for which he has been well-trained by the Michigan Air National Guard. I am pleased today to offer him my most sincere commendation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican bill. Democrats were denied an opportunity to offer our substitute that would have reversed a decade-long funding stranglehold that has provided flatline funding on the senior citizen meal program, including Meals on Wheels. In the past I have offered amendments during the appropriation process to reverse this trend, and the Republican majority has stricken my amendments in conference. The funding for senior meals programs when translated into today's dollars has steadily been dropping when adjusted for inflation, and this has resulted in significant reductions in meals provided at senior centers. In my district, from Ironwood to Au Gres, senior centers have been struggling to keep their heads above water because funding has dwindled.

In fiscal year 1994, we allocated $151 million for the Nutritional Services Incentive Program. If we were merely to just keep pace with inflation, the funding today should be $191 million. Instead, the proposal in the Republican bill cuts funding by $2 million to below where we were in 1994, where we are at $149 million. This decrease in funding ignores the large growth rate in the senior population and insults senior citizens who depend on these programs to feed themselves daily. I repeat. This Republican bill continues a decade-long flatline funding plus cuts another $200 million from the senior meal funding and ignores the needs of seniors in my district and throughout this country.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my concerns that funds from the Department of Defense budget could be used to provide universal health care coverage for the Iraqi people.

I understand that it may be necessary to care for Iraqi citizens injured in the war, but if we're going to provide universal health care to the Iraqi population we should do the same for our citizens here at home.

The 41.2 million Americans who lack health insurance coverage should not have to suffer from lack of quality health care any longer. And our soldiers fighting in Iraq, who will soon become veterans, should not be denied future health care and should not have to worry about whether their families will receive health care coverage now or in the future.

I had intended to offer an amendment to the 2004 Defense Appropriations bill to require that the U.S. provide funds only for the war-related health care needs of Iraqi citizens, and not for the universal health care services currently being offered for Iraq, however, I understood that my amendment may not have been ruled in order.

Instead of offering an amendment, therefore, I urge my colleagues to consider my position in opposition to universal care service for Iraqis until universal health is provided to all Americans. As Congress continues to address the future health care funding needs related to U.S. involvement in Iraq, I will continue to pursue opportunities to offer amendments which provide for universal health care here in the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Village of South Range, Michigan on 100 years of vibrant community life as the Village celebrates the centennial of its founding.

In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt was President, the Wright brothers made their historic first flight on the hills outside Kitty Hawk, and Henry Ford started the Ford Motor Company with the introduction of the Model A Ford roadster.

Another memorable event of 1903 was the founding of the Town of South Range by the Whealkate Mining Company, at the south end of the copper range on the Keweenaw Peninsula in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

At the time the Town of South Range was founded, most of the land within its boundaries was owned by various copper mining companies who had flocked to the area with the discovery of rich copper deposits in the 19th century. This period in the Keweenaw's history, and the economic and cultural fabric created by the mines, the miners, their families and the communities that grew up around them is the story commemorated by the Keweenaw National Historical Park.

Once the Town of South Range was platted, it became possible for hardworking miners and local people to buy the lots and begin to build a community separate from the mining companies that most of them worked for. As the town grew, businesses, churches and social clubs were created to serve its inhabitants.

In 1906 the residents petitioned the Houghton County Commissioners to incorporate the Village of South Range, which it remains today. The Village may have fewer than one thousand residents and winter weather that averages fifteen feet of snow, but its people also have warm hearts and a true civic spirit.

Led by Village President Michael Rompf, they have planned a two week centennial celebration during which South Range will choose a centennial queen and highlight its history with photo exhibits, mine tours, visits to historic sites and a living history re-enactment.

South Range residents have not forgotten music and dancing, just like the socials that provided respite from the backbreaking work in the mines for their forebears. They plan dancing to swing and polka music, and teen dances for the younger crowd. A pasty supper, community flag raising on the Fourth of July, a parade, craft and dog shows, slow pitch softball and of course, fireworks will all bring community residents and visitors closer together.

On a serious note, a ceremony will re-dedicate South Range's memorial to war veterans, the ``Honor Roll,'' at the Community Center on July 5th. This will mark completion of the restoration of the memorial and honor those who served in action from South Range. An observance of the 50th anniversary of the Korean War will follow this ceremony, hosted by South Range's VFW Post.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my fellow Members of Congress join me in extending warm congratulations to the Village of South Range as we celebrate not only the birth of our great nation, but also the contributions and hard work that made possible South Range's 100 years of continued vitality as a community. South Range and thousands of communities like it are truly the bedrock Of our national strength.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican prescription drug plan is bad for America and even worse for rural America.

Today I sent around a letter to Members explaining exactly why this GOP bill shortchanges rural areas like Northern Michigan, which I represent.

The Rangel-Dingell substitute ensures that rural areas are treated fairly. The Republican plan continues to put citizens in these areas at a huge disadvantage. The Rangel-Dingell bill goes far beyond the meager provisions for rural health care providers included in the GOP bill. Our bill, the Democratic bill, provides over $10 billion in additional relief for rural areas and removing the harmful Medicare privatization provisions that just have not worked in rural America.

Instead of helping seniors with their prescription drug plan, the Republican plan subsidizes private insurance companies. This plan tends to bribe private insurance companies to provide service in rural districts like mine. These insurance companies have come before our Committee on Energy and Commerce and have testified that they will not be providing the service, and the Republican plan just will not work.

If insurance companies do change their minds, there is nothing in this bill that will prevent them from shifting the added costs to our seniors. I had an amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would have prevented increases in the monthly premiums for seniors, no matter where they live. But unfortunately, it was voted down on a party line vote.

The GOP plan has a huge gap in coverage and does nothing to reduce the inflated prices big drug companies are charging for prescription drugs. In fact, the Republican plan has a noninterference clause that says the Health and Human Services Secretary will not, will not be allowed to negotiate lower prices for Americans.

The Rangel-Dingell bill will ensure that every senior, regardless of where they live, will be able to obtain the prescription drugs and the quality of health care they require to live a healthy life. This coverage will be provided through Medicare. Democrats are working to strengthen this program, not to do away with it, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) called for when he said, and I quote him, ``To those who say the GOP bill will end Medicare as we know it, our answer is: We certainly hope so.'' Thus, the real motive behind the GOP plan is to do away with Medicare. Democrats proudly stand behind Medicare. Support the Rangel-Dingell substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group of senior citizens who have kept their Ironwood American Association of Retired Persons Chapter #556 active and healthy for 35 years in Ironwood, Michigan.

Some of the charter members who were there when AARP Chapter #556 was first organized are still active members. Current Chapter President Ray Maurin presides over meetings the first Monday of every month at the Ironwood Senior Center.

Chapter #556 is involved every year in a workshop that brings Upper Peninsula AARP chapter presidents and others from Michigan AARP together, usually in the Ironwood area, to discuss legislative issues. These workshops are open to the public, are always informative and often lead to enthusiastic political discussions.

On an individual level, members of Chapter #556 this year joined forces with Lake Superior AARP Chapter #1791 to improve home safety for 52 homebound senior citizens by providing and installing home smoke detectors. This program was so popular that Grace Nurkkala, Michigan AARP Chapters Specialist, says she has a list of 25 additional seniors who have asked to be included.

Members of Chapters #556 and #1791 have also recently delivered cheerful, bright coffee mugs and live plants to brighten the lives of 52 seniors who receive home meal delivery through the Ironwood Senior Center.

As they stay active and engaged in political activity, reach out to their neighbors and join together for fellowship and action on issues important to senior citizens, the many members of Ironwood AARP Chapter #556 can be proud of their 35 year record of accomplishment on behalf of seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and the other members of this body will join me in extending our heartiest congratulations to Ironwood AARP Chapter #556 on the 35th anniversary of its organization.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you know of my fondness for spending as much time as possible in my First Congressional District of Michigan, which I can, without any bias whatsoever, say is the most beautiful in the nation.

I rise today to give special recognition to one community in my - district, Marquette, which lies on the southern shore of Lake Superior in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

On June 14, 2003, Marquette County was selected as one of ten communities in the United States to receive an All-America City designation from the National Civic League at a ceremony in Washington,

Mr. Speaker and Congresswoman Norton, thank you for the opportunity to support women's issues and to acknowledge the contributions of former Michigan Congresswoman Martha Griffiths to the cause of equal rights for women.

As the U.S. Representative from Michigan's 1st District, I am particularly proud of the example set by this dynamic, fiery woman, who was elected to the U.S. House in 1954 and served here for twenty years, including a term as the first woman on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Before her service in the U.S. House, Martha Griffiths served from 1949 to 1952 in the Michigan House, followed by two years as the first woman Detroit Recorder's Court judge.

Martha Griffiths was still in Congress when I began my career in public service as a police officer in Escanaba, Michigan in 1972. By the time she re-entered public life as Michigan's first elected female Lieutenant Governor in 1982, I was serving as a Michigan State Trooper.

In all that time, and later when I was elected to the Michigan State House of Representatives, I had Martha Griffith's example to follow.

While she was one of America's greatest women leaders, she was also at the top of the list of consummate politicians and public servants of either gender.

In her work reinvigorating the fight to pass the Equal Rights amendment and in adding language banning sex discrimination in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Martha Griffiths set the stage for later generations of women in politics.

My own wife Laurie, who is the elected mayor of our hometown of Menominee, is one of the thousands of women who benefited from Martha Griffiths' trailblazing work in politics and public life.

Martha Griffiths added influential roles in business to her resume after she retired from the U.S. House, serving on five major corporate boards, including two--Chrysler Corporation and Consumers Power Company--which had up to that time been all male.

A Detroit Free Press editorial on the occasion of Martha's death April 24 of this year summed it up beautifully.

The Free Press said, ``Her very presence wielded power, especially when accompanied by her famously sharp tongue. Of course, her unabashed willingness to go toe-to-toe with the good old boys drew some detractors. An old man once wrote to Griffiths telling her to leave the political stage. `All you've ever done is succeed in making women more insolent,' he wrote.''

What this aging gentleman referred to as insolence we now applaud as assertiveness in such political leaders as Representative Nancy Pelosi, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and the many women in state and local elected office like my partner in life Laurie. The thousands upon thousands of women who have climbed higher in business, community service and government in recent decades are also beneficiaries of Martha's efforts.

I do not have daughters.

But should I be lucky enough to have a daughter-in-law or granddaughters, I will be more than proud if they emulate even some of the self confidence, intelligence, perseverance and fierce effort that Martha Griffiths brought to all her causes.

We can best honor her legacy by continuing to work for equal pay and equal opportunity in the work force, continued support for widows and heads of households in Social Security and pension benefits, labor rights and a refusal to accept sex discrimination in any form.

I am happy to pledge my efforts to those goals.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this celebration of women's issues and Martha Griffiths' contributions to those causes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman and I did have an opportunity to listen to the last group speaking on the floor, and while they seemed very sincere, and I say this respectfully, they are freshmen Members, and they have been here for 6 months. The gentleman from New Jersey and I have been here for over 10 years, we sit on the Subcommittee on Health, and we have been through this debate a number of times.

When we look at it, much of the emphasis by the last group that spoke simply is not found in the bill that will be put forth before our committee starting at 1 p.m. tomorrow. It will be before the full committee starting at 1 p.m. Last year, we went 24 hours around the clock, actually it was 36 hours, we ended at 6:30 in the morning. The other group before us said the debate has begun. There will be no debate. When we start our markup tomorrow at 1, we will do our opening statements. Then we will start presenting amendments. We both have some amendments, other Democratic Members will have amendments. Some Republicans will have amendments. But I can tell Members standing here right now, of the Democratic amendments, none of them, or at least any meaningful Democratic amendment that is put forth will be accepted by the majority party. There will not be a debate. It will be their way or no way.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. A few hundred feet from here the Senate is putting forth a bill that seems to have some bipartisan support, and many of us on the committee, Democrats and Republicans, have looked at it and we think there is an area which we can work with in the Senate bill.

The bill we start marking up tomorrow is not the Senate bill. It is not even close to the Senate bill. It does not reflect the Senate bill. The bill we see tomorrow that we will have in our committee and begin to markup will say this: It will privatize Medicare by 2010. It will force seniors into a voucher plan. In other words, seniors are going to get a voucher to purchase not only their prescription drugs, but also their Medicare.

If you cannot afford anything over and above that voucher, you are going to be left behind as they privatize a system that has served our seniors for so many years.

Thirdly, it will not cover every senior. This plan that is going to be put forth tomorrow, we looked at it tonight to get ready for it tomorrow, has a gap in it. Once you hit $2,000, you go off the coverage. You continue to pay your monthly premium, which is anticipated to be about $35, and you get no coverage for it, and you stay there until you incur up to $3,700 out of pocket, and then you kick back in. There is a gap. The gap is designed for most seniors who fall between the $2,000 and

$3,000, that is their out-of-pocket expense for prescription drug coverage, so you are going to be paying a premium and getting no coverage? It does not make any sense. It is truly a gap policy. We have had this debate before. So look very closely and watch the markup in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The last group talked about, the last group of Members wanting to debate it, I am happy to come down here Wednesday evening, I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey would, too, and let us talk about it. The reason why I say Wednesday is because Tuesday we start the markup at 1 o'clock; we will still be going most of the day Wednesday. So why not come back here and have a real good, honest debate about this bill, because the bill described, and again I think with all sincerity to the other group that was here earlier, just is not the bill we are working on tomorrow.

The House Republican prescription drug plan is not the Senate bill. Many of us have looked at the Senate bill. There are some areas we can work with, and we look forward to doing that. So while we seem to have some negotiating going on a few hundred feet away by the other body in the Capitol here, we will not even get a simple amendment to be offered tomorrow by many of us, will be defeated on a party-line vote, there will not be any debate, there will not be any negotiations, there will not be any working together.

Why is this bill suddenly coming on our calendar? I think the House Republican leadership realized that the Senate was gaining a little momentum, they do have a bill that is starting to take on some bipartisan cooperation here and they are farther ahead than the House is on Medicare. So what do they do? They roll out the plan they had last year which barely passed this House and did not go anywhere because it really does not provide prescription drug coverage for all Americans. It is not affordable. Many of us will be left behind.

When you take a look at it, I come from northern Michigan, a very rural district. I have half the State of Michigan. I am a very rural district. This scheme put forward by the Republicans tomorrow starting in our Committee on Energy and Commerce simply will not work. This plan puts seniors in the same dilemma as we saw last year. They will be asked to give up traditional Medicare and be forced into an HMO with a private insurance plan backing it up.

An HMO is nothing more than a private insurance plan. They want to take traditional fee-for-service Medicare, force you in this HMO and they say, when you do this, you will have choice. You can stay in your traditional plan, pay a heck of a lot more, or you go into our HMO. I am from northern Michigan. I do not have the Federal employees health insurance program. I said when I ran for office, I would not take any kind of health care from the Federal Government until all Americans had it. So I do not accept even their prescription drug plan we have here.

I have a plan that I have had in place for a long time. Unfortunately, this year this plan is doing much like the Republican plan. It has decided to put me in an HMO, a PPO, preferred physician organization. I can stay in my traditional plan, or I can go into the PPO. Being from northern Michigan where we have a small population base spread out over many, many miles, there are not enough people there to go into an HMO, or a PPO. So while I have this insurance card that says I get this 80/20 coverage, the reality is that none of the doctors or the pharmacies in my area participate in this PPO. Therefore, I have to pay out of pocket what the PPO will not pay. Since I am not in their plan, they do not get the reduced rate for me. So instead of being 80/ 20, I am paying about 50/50. Every time myself or my family have to go to the doctor, we have to shell out 50 percent and the so-called insurance or private insurance company will pay the other 50 percent. My deduction has gone up, they cover less; and since I am in a rural area where they do not have PPOs or HMOs, I have to pay more.

Look what happens when you go to these HMOs or PPOs. They are nothing but insurance plans. What has happened to the cost of insurance in the last couple of years? It has gone up 25, 35 percent. If we allow them to put in this voucher system and give every senior in this country a voucher and say, you would have your choice, go buy the plan you want, you are buying private insurance. They are not going to be able to afford it. Seniors are on a fixed income. They cannot afford a 25, 35 percent increase. No matter where I go in my district, and I was in my district today talking to the credit union league, the Blue Ox Credit Union chapter out of Alpena, Michigan, and what were they telling me? The cost of the health insurance has gone sky high. Not only are they concerned about prescription drug coverage that they would like to see for their parents and grandparents, but just the simple cost of insurance has gone up 25, 35 percent.

The local credit unions cannot even afford to cover their employees anymore. So we are going to force seniors, take away traditional Medicare, put them into this insurance plan, if you will, give them a voucher; whatever your voucher pays for, that is what you get. If you want anything more than that, you are going to have to pay for it. How are they ever going to keep up with these costs of insurance that we see in a private plan? It does not make any sense to me. Medicare is sound. Ninety-seven percent of all seniors in this country are part of Medicare. It is one of the best-run programs. Less than 1 percent of every dollar, less than one penny is used for the administration of the program. Sure it costs a lot of money. Seniors are living longer. That is the success of the Medicare program. Should we have a prescription drug benefit plan? You bet. We Democrats will be in the markup fighting for it. We are going to take a look at that Senate plan, and hopefully we can make it part of it.

I have always advocated the Federal Supply Service. In this country, the biggest purchaser of prescription drugs is the Federal Government. We provide drugs for the Veterans Administration, we provide drugs for Medicaid, we provide drugs for Indian Health Services and government services. There is an agency within the Federal Government called Federal Supply Service, FSS. The Federal Supply Service sits down and negotiates with the drug companies. Since we are the biggest purchaser, the Federal Government is, we get the best possible price, and we negotiate it with the drug companies for no matter what the medication is. We negotiate that price.

In a survey done by the Committee on Government Reform in my district, I am sure they have done it in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey, found that if we could use the Federal Supply Service price, use the purchasing power of the Federal Government and have the seniors go buy their drugs at their local pharmacy, we could reduce the cost of those drugs by 40 to 50 percent. For instance, if I do not have any insurance, let us take Zocor, to lower your cholesterol. The last time we did this survey which was in 2000, it was just over $100 for a 30-day supply of Zocor. If I am under the Federal Supply Service, the FSS, it costs $42.

Why can we not use the purchasing power for those seniors who do not have some kind of prescription drug coverage or MediGap policy and pass that on to them? We do not need a part D of Medicare. We do not need a new program that costs billions of dollars. The infrastructure is already set up. Why can we not do that? That will be one of the amendments we will be offering in our markup on prescription drug coverage. And I am sure like last time, the Democrats will vote for it, all the Republicans will vote against it, and we will end up losing that argument. But here is just a simple idea without creating more Federal Government, bigger bureaucracy: take the purchasing power of the Federal Government and pass it on to our citizens. It makes sense to me. But instead, we are going to have this big scheme, they are going to call it part D of Medicare, they are going to give you a voucher and move you into a private insurance company. They are going to provide you with this policy that has a gap in it between those who have 2 to $3,000 worth of coverage, you are going to pay your monthly premium but you get no coverage, it is called a gap policy, and then they are going to privatize Medicare with this voucher and it is not the Senate plan.

I would have thought they would at least bring forth the Senate plan, attempts to privatize Medicare by relying upon health insurance companies to offer Medicare benefits in rural areas. We already know it has failed. Rural areas are smaller, less population, we are spread out. These areas just are not appealing to big private insurance companies when they can operate with higher profits in densely populated areas.

Plus, let us face it. The HMOs, the PPOs, these private companies, if they are not forced to take everybody, they will cherry pick. They only want the healthiest seniors in their plan. They do not want those who have chronic illnesses or disease, or maybe cancer or heart disease running in their family; they do not want them part of their plan. Why? Because it costs too much money. So these programs of Medicare+Choice and HMOs and all this really just do not exist in rural areas for that reason, because the private companies pulled out when they realized they could not make any more money. They cherry pick and only want the healthiest ones. In fact, I think in the last year, if my memory serves me correctly, 400,000 Americans have lost their insurance coverage under Medicare, Medicare+Choice in this country, because they pull out. As soon as they stop making money, they pull out and they leave you. If you look at the Republican proposal that will be before our committee tomorrow, there is no way you get back in. If your HMO or PPO or Medicare+Choice plan pulls out of your area, what remedy do you have to get back into the system? There is not one. That is one of the problems with this bill.

So when we walk into the Committee on Energy and Commerce meeting starting at 1 o'clock tomorrow, you can be sure that we will be there to fight this amendment to protect Medicare so that it will be available to all seniors and all disabled Americans no matter where they live and no matter what their income is.

When you take a look at it, another part of this bill that bothers me tremendously is the Republican bill. Again we saw it last year. We debated it for 36 hours in committee. None of our amendments were made in order. But if you take a look at it, there is nothing there to reduce the price of prescription drugs. You give people a voucher, you have nothing to reduce the cost in increase of insurance, there is nothing there to reduce the price of your prescription drugs. The voucher might work for a year or two, but then the insurance is going to catch up to you and you are going to have to pay more for that voucher, and you are going to get less coverage for your pharmaceuticals.

The bill does not include any provision to hold down pharmaceutical prices that the big drug companies charge. There is not even a guarantee in the Republican bill as to what your monthly premium is going to be. In fact, I am glad the gentleman from New Jersey brought it up, there is also language in this bill that states, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be forbidden from negotiating for better drug prices on behalf of the American people. What happened when we had the anthrax coming in here? Remember we had Cipro; we had companies who were willing to make Cipro for us. They wanted $3 a tablet. The Secretary of Health and Human Services did his job, went and negotiated; we have got Cipro now being produced to provide us all over the country. What did he do? He negotiated a price to about $1 a tablet, two-thirds of a savings they achieved just through simple negotiation, again going back to Federal Supply Service, used the purchasing power of the Federal Government to bring down the cost.

In this bill we will be marking up tomorrow, it is called the noninterference clause, which prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate on your behalf to lower your drug prices. When you get that voucher, who is going to stand and negotiate for you? The drug companies? The insurance companies? No, they have got a vested interest. So you would look to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and you would think the Federal Government would be there, it is their plan, that they would be negotiating a price for you. They are forbidden from doing it.

There are many, many more interesting provisions in this Republican scheme that we will see over the next few days. This plan intends to, with all due respect, bribe private insurance into a scheme, that rural areas will be shunned under this plan, just as we have been in Medicare+Choice. This idea could result in rural seniors getting stuck with higher premiums compared to our counterparts or beneficiaries who live in the cities.

I will introduce an amendment just like I did last year, because we saw the same thing. My amendment last year ensures that seniors, no matter where they live, rural, urban, will not pay higher premiums than their counterparts in the cities. No matter where you live, my amendment will say, you will pay the same monthly premium, whether you live in New Jersey or Michigan, Detroit or Menominee, Michigan or Alpena, you are going to pay the same monthly premium. That will be an amendment we will bring. I can predict right now on a party-line vote, we will lose that amendment. So urban areas would pay less than the rural areas under the Republican scheme. If you are going to subsidize these companies, whether it is insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies in the name of undercutting Medicare, it is reprehensible that you are going to stick it to the poor rural seniors who will have to pay more for a doomed experiment in privatization with Medicare, a system that has worked so well.

As I said earlier, the Republican plan has no set premium or cost sharing. In other words, insurance companies would design a prescription drug plan, deciding what to charge you and what drugs they want to cover. The Republican plan will in many cases deny coverage for medicines that a doctor may choose to prescribe for you and would really require seniors to change pharmacies or change coverage.

The Democratic plan that we will put forth, and there are going to be two or three of them, will guarantee prescription drug coverage under Medicare. It will guarantee fair drug prices. It will guarantee a premium of only $25 per month, $100 yearly deductible, and the maximum our beneficiaries would pay under the Democratic plan out of pocket is $2,000 per year. Some people say that we cannot do that, that is just too expensive. We just provided universal healthcare service for Iraq, in the Iraqi bailout bill. $79 billion we spent. In there was a provision to provide universal health service in Iraq. If we can provide universal health service and prescription drug coverage in Iraq, can we not do it here in this country? And will it cost us a few bucks? You bet, because we are a much better country, but I think it is something our seniors deserve and we will be there.

The Republican plan is not a real Medicare benefit. It is based upon a privatization model that has failed in my district and will fail throughout this country. We will continue to fight in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to ensure that every senior, regardless of where they live, will be able to obtain prescription drugs they require to live a healthy life and that this coverage will be provided through the Medicare program. No gimmicks, no so-called reform, which really means privatize it. It is going to be a straight-up proposal put forth by the Democrats. And I hope we can have a meaningful discussion in the committee, but having been here more than 10 years and having sat on this committee now for 9 years, the Health Subcommittee, when one party gets control, unfortunately any amendment put forth by the other party in good faith to even negotiate or bring forth a point is usually voted down on a party-line vote.

So once again, as I started tonight, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, I would ask our Republican friends who spoke a little earlier, let us sit down Wednesday night here and let us have a debate on this, what plan really covers who, what, when, where and how. And I think that is only fair. By then we would have a day and a half debate in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We can see the shape of the bill, and let us come back before the American people and debate the merits of the plan because there is no doubt in my mind, the plan that we will be seeing on this House floor is not

the plan the Senate is negotiating in a bipartisan manner. It is a bill that we saw last year which is a voucher system, which privatizes Medicare, has a gap in coverage, and for those of us in the rural areas it certainly will be discriminatory towards us not only in coverage, but also in price.

So with that I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey. I thank him for the opportunity to be here tonight, and if he has any questions, I will stay for a little while longer. But I also see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) has joined us. I am sure he has a lot of insight on this, being a physician, or a psychiatrist, I should say.

As you were saying, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot negotiate, so we give your mother, who is 93 years old, this voucher, who negotiates for her? It is $4,500. There is no guarantee it will not go up. What happens if it does go up?

So how do these plans, who are not under the care of the government, keep your costs down? They will restrict the access to the pharmaceuticals, because that is the most rapidly rising part of health care. So instead of providing that benefit, they will provide you with a voucher to take care of all your health care needs and then for the prescription drugs, if you have some left over, but only if that plan will cover the prescription drug you need.

It is really crazy. Any drug that is not in the plan's formulary would not be covered. Beneficiaries would have to pay then 100 percent out-of-pocket of the costs of that drug because it is not in their plan, it is not in that voucher that they got. I think the gentleman from Washington makes a great point, how do we know what mine, yours or your parents' health care needs will be 3 or 4 years from now? Once you go into these plans, can you come back in to traditional Medicare? Probably, but at a cost you cannot afford.

So, the points brought up tonight are well taken, and I appreciate the gentleman coming and joining us from the Committee on Ways and Means. As you do your markup, we will be doing ours. And do not feel too bad. Those on the Democratic side, we have not seen the Republican proposal. We know we will see it tomorrow at 1 o'clock. Then we will make some statements about it, and then when the real markup begins, they will slip a substitute in there so we will be scrambling to make sure our amendments are corresponding to the bill, but we do not even have the courtesy to see it before we even begin this markup. Probably the greatest program we can put forth right now is prescription drugs. Our parents, we, everyone needs it. But yet here we are, the night before the beginning of the markup, whether it is the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and we cannot see the bill.

We are basing it upon past years' experience.

The gentleman from Washington said when we get these bills tomorrow, we will start working on them, and we are not sure where we can go with them.

I think we can guarantee the American people a number of things we will not do. We will not provide a voucher system. At least the Democrats will fight to make sure there is no voucher system.

We will not privatize Medicare and shift you into an HMO or some other

insurance company plan, Medicare-Plus, Medicare-Choice, whatever it is going to be.

We will make sure that any prescription drug plan, at least from our side of the aisle, will not have a gap in it, so those who have from $2,000 to $3,700 out-of-pocket cost will not be paying a premium and get nothing in return for it.

We know that the plan we will be seeing tomorrow, whether it is Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce, is not the bipartisan plan being put forth by the Senate. In fact, in Energy and Commerce we will probably put that plan forth in a bipartisan manner to try to get a plan that will truly work.

We Democrats will continue to fight to make sure and ensure that every senior, regardless of where they live, will be able to obtain prescription drugs that they require to live a healthy life, and this coverage will be provided through a Medicare program that cannot be taken away or you are priced out of it.

Well, we have sat through the budget battles, the gentleman and I, and through the committee now for about 10 years; and we have seen first to start out was Medicare Choice, Medicare+Choice, Medicare Access; they always have these nice names. They said, okay, so many seniors can go into it. Every year we have never hit the target yet for what we have provided as an experiment. Because what happens is that they come in, start to insure in an area, see the costs are going up a little too much, and then they pull out, and then the seniors have to scramble to try and get coverage, and it just has not worked at all.

Mr. Speaker, it is not going to work for prescription drugs; and let us face it, they are going to get a prescription drug plan and if they take their plan, they are going to give up traditional Medicare, get a privatization of it, a voucher with a gap for prescription drug coverage. It is not going to work. It is not the Senate plan. They are not even guaranteed a price, and no one is there to help them out. They are on their own. This choice sounds great; but what seniors want is the security that Medicare provides, not some choice that they cannot understand or be able to predict what is going to happen 3 or 4 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Matt Johnson, a young man who served Michigan's First Congressional District well for nearly 9 years, and has now become Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's Upper Peninsula Representative.

Matt started working for me in May of 1994 as an intern while attending Northern Michigan University (NMU). Matt took on significant responsibility during his internship, working some extended hours and learning the ropes of how a congressional district office is run.

After completing his degree in Public Administration at NMU, Matt assumed a full-time position in my Marquette district office as a congressional aide. Another staff member in my Marquette office at the time, Brian Schlientz, unfortunately took ill with a brain tumor and passed away several months later. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because Matt's new role as a congressional aide fresh out of college was no doubt a difficult enough adjustment, but when compounded with the tragedy of losing his mentor, Matt faced significant challenges.

After working as a congressional aide for nearly three years, Matt was promoted to the role of District Administrator when my District Administrator, Scott Schloegel, moved to Washington to become Chief of Staff. Matt was responsible for coordination and oversight of the staff in my six district offices. He also did outreach, grants, and special projects throughout Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of watching Matt Johnson grow from a fresh-faced college intern into a seasoned public servant. Along the way he has traveled tens of thousands of miles, held hundreds of meetings, assisted thousands of constituents, and learned volumes of information about federal--and now state--government. Matt has also taken time to settle down a bit with his wife, Cheri and their 1-year- old daughter, Jacey, on their horse farm in Skandia. On their farm, Matt and Cheri host various horse events, including a charity fund raiser each year. As anyone in public service knows, one's spouse often sacrifices as much as the public servant does. I would be remiss in not thanking Cheri for sharing Matt with us and being understanding on those dozens of occasions when duty called Matt to drive several hours away to attend meetings, dinners, and other functions on my behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to publicly recognize a dedicated former employee, a good friend, and a wonderful human being for his contributions to Michigan's First Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work and achievements of John Arger, a dear, close friend of mine who has challenged the thinking of literally thousands of students in his Marinette High School government and social studies classes since 1974.

John retired June 2, after 29 years of inspired teaching at Marinette High, which is just a stone's throw across the Menominee River in Wisconsin from my 1st Congressional District of Michigan. We don't use passports to cross the river, and John has made many important contributions to the two communities of Marinette, WI, and Menominee, MI, over his many years of teaching and involvement in local politics.

I have seen John in action when I visited his classes at Marinette High, and can testify from experience that he made the subjects of government and social studies come alive for his students. A favorite tradition for his students was a surreptitious after-midnight visit to the Arger yard at election time. The Argers would wake up to find one of every single candidate's yard signs displayed on their front lawn-- testimony to how well the students learned the value of becoming informed about local, State and national issues.

One of John's special pleasures as a teacher was being able to re- connect with students he taught as freshmen when they came back to him in senior government classes. He loved seeing how they had grown intellectually and become adult in their concepts of community and the world. Returning students who have graduated and left their hometown often seek him out on return visits from the ``bigger world'' that he has helped them to understand, and he cherishes these one-on-one exchanges.

John grew up in Marquette, MI, where his mother Rose still lives. He attended Marquette High School and graduated from Northern Michigan University, NMU, in Marquette in 1970. He then earned his teaching certificate at NMU. In later years, he went on to earn two master's degrees, one in political science and a second in guidance and counseling.

In 1994, John was honored as an outstanding alumnus when NMU presented him its Alumni Service Award. The award recognized his work in support of higher education, his service on the NMU Alumni Board and his tireless efforts as a regional NMU alumni coordinator.

I have heard rumors that when John was in high school and college, he was a Goldwater Republican. John started to adjust this misguided but most likely well-intentioned position as soon as he began teaching. One morning--I imagine the sun was shining and bluebirds were singing--he woke up to the realization that the Republican party was not the party of the average American. He has been an unabashed liberal ever since.

However, in his early years as a teacher, he also prided himself on the fact that none of his students could tell what his political preferences were, even after a year spent discussing government and how it works.

John has contributed countless hours to the life of his community, through public service and in political campaigns at several levels. He and his wife Janice have lived in Menominee since their marriage in 1984, when he finally coaxed Jan away from her teaching career in West Bend to Menominee after years of dating.

Jan herself is a great asset not just to their happy and long-lived marriage, but to the Menominee community. She has been a special- education teacher with the Menominee Intermediate School System since joining John in Menominee. She received her master's degree from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls and specializes in speech pathology.

On Saturday, June 7, along with many other friends and colleagues of John's, I will be in Menominee to celebrate John's achievements and wish him well. Although his dad Nick passed away when John was still a young man, I know that Nick will be there in spirit, alongside Rose, Jan and a roomful of friends, to lift a glass of retsina with us as we say ``Opa'' to John in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, John Arger is the kind of American who inspires our work here in this House. I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in giving him our heartiest congratulations and best wishes for a full and happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives took up H. Res. 231, a resolution supporting Peace Officers Memorial Day, which took place on May 15, and honoring law enforcement officers who were killed or disabled in the line of duty. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Hefley for sponsoring this important legislation again this year, and wholeheartedly back this important resolution.

Supporting law enforcement is very important to me. Before coming to Congress in 1993, I served for over 12 years as a Michigan state police officer for the Escanaba City Police Department. I was the founder and have continuously served as co-chair of the House Law Enforcement Caucus for the past 11 years.

Since September 11, 2001, many in this nation and this Congress have come to realize the importance of the sacrifices made by our law enforcement officers. Every day law enforcement men and women protect and serve, often putting their own lives at risk. In Michigan alone, over 40 officers have given their lives in the line of duty over the past 15 years.

Peace Officers Memorial Day brings us together in honoring the extreme sacrifice our nation's law enforcement and public safety officers make to our communities and our nation every day.

I think it is important as we discuss this important resolution, to resolve to focus in Congress on providing the necessary funding and support to law enforcement in the growing challenges they face.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will follow up on their support of this resolution, and continue our commitment to law enforcement by supporting these important funding needs. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line every day.