Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again bring attention to the upcoming elections in Belarus.

The current leader, Aleksandr Lukashenko told the National Assembly on April 14th, ``The new parliament that is to be elected this fall should include representatives of all groups aside from ``businessmen, merchants and capitalists.''

At a time when Belarus desperately needs business and entreuprenuers, it is appalling that the Belaursian leader would declare that candidates with business backgrounds or professions would not be allowed to run or to serve in the Belarus Assembly.

In response to this repressive political environment, we need to focus our efforts on helping to promote the institutional survival of the country's democratic political organizations and helping their leaders and activists prepare for political and public policy.

The important thing for the current regime in Belarus to understand is that Washington and the world are watching.

Mr. Speaker, last week millions of Americans got a surprise when they filed their tax returns. This year a record 44 million tax returns, one-third of all returns filed, have no income tax liability because of the available credits and deductions in the Tax Code. This is a 50 percent increase in the number of zero-tax filers in just 4 years. The vast majority of these 44 million filers are from low-income households who saw their tax liability disappear thanks to the tax cuts pushed by President Bush and this House.

The expansion of the 10 percent bracket, the increased child tax credit, and the marriage penalty relief are the leading reasons that so many people were able to have zero liability. All these tax provisions are in jeopardy if Congress does not act to extend them by the end of this year.

These are not tax cuts for the rich. They are tax provisions designed to help working men and women bring home more of their paychecks. In fact, 75 percent of the 44 million will earn less than $20,000 per year, and 97 percent will earn less than $40,000 per year.

Congress needs to extend these provisions and continue giving tax relief to working America.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call attention to a piece of legislation that I introduced, along with my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), to address the shortage of medical laboratory personnel, H.R. 623.

The United States is facing a severe and increasing problematic shortage of qualified laboratory personnel. Many rural areas and areas served by smaller hospitals are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain qualified laboratory workers.

The vital role medical laboratory professionals play in health care must be recognized. Between 70 to 75 percent of all medical diagnoses are based on laboratory test results. But because these important health care practitioners seldom have direct patient contact, their important role in health care often goes unnoticed by patients. Ensuring that our Nation's laboratories possess the human resources, that is, laboratory professionals, to accurately process laboratory testing demands is critical to patient health.

The U.S. Department of Labor projects that approximately 13,200 medical laboratory professionals will be needed each year through 2010. Unfortunately, fewer than 5,000 individuals are graduating from accredited training programs each year.

The bill includes a scholarship program to help students meet their academic education and clinical training expenses. It provides for loan forgiveness by working in areas designated as having a shortage of medical laboratory personnel or allied health practitioners. In addition, this legislation establishes a program to provide awards to individuals who teach medical laboratory science.

These are just a few of the important measures created in H.R. 623. I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a ``thank you'' to Mel Gibson and his movie ``The Passion of the Christ.''

I think it is appropriate during this Easter break that we understand that no greater love is this, than one lays down their life for someone else.

As we go back to our districts and work and try to address the concerns and problems of our constituents and the Nation, I think it is just appropriate to remember that we are all one family and we need to work together to solve our problems.

Mr. Speaker, I wish all my colleagues a happy Easter break.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the upcoming elections in Belarus.

While most of the former Eastern Bloc countries have demonstrated varying degrees of democratic progress since the Soviet collapse, Belarus has slipped back into a Soviet Union-style dictatorship. Belarus's current President, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, was elected in July, 1994. The country's political and economic repression intensified in 1996 when President Lukashenka orchestrated passage of a constitutional referendum that provided him control over all of the branches of government and society as a whole. The President then disbanded the parliament, and only those members loyal to him chose to serve in the new legislature. He extended his term of office to 2001, and the 2001 election lacked transparency and democratic administration.

In response to the repressive political environment, we need to focus our efforts on helping to promote an institutional survival of the country's democratic political organizations and helping their leaders and activists prepare for political and public policy roles in a future democratic Belarus.

The important thing for the current regime in Belarus to understand is that Washington and the world are watching.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the current status of manufacturing jobs in this country.

Last week, there was an article in the Boston Globe entitled, ``What the Jobless Statistics Do Not Reveal,'' written by Paul E. Harrington and Andrew Sum. The article focused on the debate of when job creation will begin and why there is a huge difference in the report of job growth between two surveys, the payroll survey and the household survey.

The payroll survey is the corporate survey, which indicates a decreased loss of 620,000 jobs. However, the household survey says there is a 2.3 million increase in employment during this same period of time. Why the disparity?

Well, the household survey counts self-employed and contractors. If you are self-employed like a farmer in my district, you are not counted as being an employee under the payroll survey reports. The authors point out that the disparity is due to the fact that it has become so expensive to add new workers to payroll due to high cost of health insurance, unemployment insurance, worker compensation, payroll taxes, and it is easier and cheaper to hire and pay overtime.

If we want to stem the loss of manufacturing in the corporate sector, our legislative response is clear. We are going to have to address these issues of high cost.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to three members of the ``Coalition of the Willing''--Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

These Baltic nations have answered the call to freedom. The people of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania should feel very proud of the effort their governments have given to the rebuilding of Iraq and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They have troops deployed in Iraq and these men and women are putting their lives on the line in the fight for freedom and democracy. In fact Latvia has deployed 150 soldiers, Estonia 55, and Lithuania 85. The sacrifice they are making should not be taken lightly.

These countries understand what freedom is, and what it takes to ensure it. I wish more countries had the same sense of duty and responsibility as these three nations. When the future is written, what they have done and sacrificed will not be forgotten. I applaud all of their efforts and I am very proud of what they have accomplished. The Coalition of the Willing has been criticized as being ``token allies'' and claims of ulterior motives have been made. I for one don't believe any of this and I am glad these countries have joined our efforts. This is a fight worth fighting, and I salute our friends from Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk on the Medicare Modernization Act. Tax-free health savings accounts that are accumulative allows the individual to pick up basic health care costs and shop around for quality and service, one of the great benefits of the Medicare Modernization Act. The other thing is then moving individuals into catastrophic health insurance plans which will be, obviously, in essence a lot lower than health care costs today. What people fear is the ability to lose their life savings on catastrophic illnesses. By having the catastrophic health insurance account, that will not occur and it will be at a cost that people can assume. But the only way we are going to bring down health care costs in America is to make sure that the consumer is involved in choosing their services based upon quality and service. No middlemen, the consumer. That is the benefit of the health savings account. The Medicare Modernization Act was real reform, and I am proud to have supported it.

Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful day. Actually, the great day was yesterday, and it is an honor to be here on the floor with the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), who have become great friends in this battle. It is a battle that I have really been fortunate to join, really at the closing of it. It is an important step forward to President Bush's goal and others within the administration's goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.

It was great at the ceremonies yesterday when, on the lawn, on the east lawn, not only was the current administration there, but representatives of previous administrations: the Honorable Jean Kirkpatrick was there, the Honorable Madeleine Albright was there, Sandy Berger was there. So it really shows that NATO enlargement is really something that has lasted the test of time.

At a time in our country where there seems to be great divisiveness, one unifying aspect is NATO enlargement. I am proud to be a Member of the House where I think all enlargements, actually, the momentum has always started, I think from the Madrid enlargement to even this most recent round. I think the other body gets a lot of credit because of their votes, but we do not want to shy away or take a second seat to anybody in our position and our push for NATO enlargement.

I have enjoyed the relationship with the American citizens who still have a great respect and honor for their ethnic heritage and their home countries. These American citizens, who have fought in our wars and have given their lives for freedom and democracy, really ask their government to do a simple thing and help return that type of stability, peace, and freedom to their home countries, the countries of their birth, the countries of their forefathers. NATO does that.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization brings a collective self- defense mission to again address that area of a Europe whole and free, so it is just a very important and exciting day. So I appreciate the resolution, because we should be part of the celebratory aspect and make sure that we are on record saying a job well done.

There is still much work to go before us, as both the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) have mentioned. But we are going to be much stronger as a united world, united under basic principles of freedom and democracy and the rule of law when we address totalitarian regimes than we would be to continue to have a fractured environment in Europe.

We know what these new entrants are already doing. Actually, they have come through the membership action plan, which was not an easy task. When we have these democracies move from a centralized market economy to a free market economy, that creates a lot of stress on the way that the government used to provide services. These governments had to decide whether they needed to move aggressively with large parts of their dollars to transform themselves to be prepared to enter NATO. That is not easy, when you are changing from a system where the government is providing for all of the basic needs and now you are taking money away to increase the ability for self-defense. So they need to be applauded. They have gone through the process of reform in the military, in the economy, the rule of law; and the membership action plan really helped do that.

Now they have also come to the forefront in the war on international terrorism. I know a lot of folks understand that it is important what they have given after September 11, their involvement in Afghanistan and for many their involvement in Iraq; and it is not a small task to ask these new emerging democracies to send their sons and daughters overseas for a cause of freedom, peace, and security in the world.

So this is really appropriate that we do this. Bulgaria is focused on engineers and mine-sweepers; Romania on unmanned aerial vehicles and mountain troops; Slovakia, nuclear, biological, and chemical defense units; Slovenia, mountain warfare troops; Estonia, military divers and mine countermeasures; Latvia, explosive ordnance disposal; and Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia will provide special operations forces.

So they are going to be additive to NATO. But where they are really going to be more additive, actually a multiplier, is really their heart and soul. These countries still have the scars of totalitarian regimes. They still hurt as they look at what has occurred to their countries over the decades. They bring an understanding of the cause for freedom and democracy. That is a message that sometimes those of us who have experienced and benefited from democratic governance for many years, we sort of take for granted and forget. Not after September 11, of course. But they are reenergizing NATO. They are bringing their commitment, their heart and soul.

I wholly applaud, really, the international community, the United States for our leadership, and really the membership countries for saying, this is the right thing to do at the right time. The world will be stronger and more at peace because of the most historical organization in the history of the world that has kept the peace for over 50 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am honored to have the chance to be on the floor to recognize them. I look forward to their added power as we move forward in this very dangerous and difficult time in this world.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from my colleague from Colorado Mr. Beauprez.

I am here to talk about a subject that is just critical. We just have to get down to, really, the brass tacks. It is really hard for me to understand.

I hope my colleague from New Mexico stays around because maybe we can get involved in a debate and discussion on the multitude of issues.

This energy bill took in numerous committee work from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to the Committee on Resources, to the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Agriculture had a part in it, the Committee on House Administration had provisions, the Committee on Science had provisions. This is one of the few times that you have a comprehensive national energy bill and plan.

And we are there. We are so close, I could almost taste the finish line. Because the critical nature is readily evident to all of us. It is amazing that when you have the highest gasoline prices that many of us have ever seen and you definitely have the highest natural gas prices that anyone has seen, to huge blackouts in the Northeast, millions of people without power, why cannot we move an energy bill? Why cannot we have a vote and then a passage of a plan that would bring some security, some safety, some reliability to the energy markets and the energy industry and the folks that want to conserve?

There are actually great conservation provisions in this energy bill. We worked at great length to make sure that all stakeholders were involved in the debate. It was a free and open debate, taking many hours in the Committee on Commerce, late into the night, open, amendments passed, amendments defeated. The bill brought before the floor, the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House. The conference committee did its work, brought the bill back to the House and had another good vote on the conference side, and now we are held hostage by a minority in the other body.

It is unfortunate because unless we act on legislation, unless we have the public policy debate on energy, on where we want to be in the future, then we are going to see the same type of activities that we are seeing today.

And, of course, in this political season, the opposition would love to see no energy bill. It is hypocritical to complain about the high cost of gasoline when you voted no on the energy bill. It is hypocritical to talk about the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country when you voted against an energy bill. It is hypocritical to continue to spout the same rhetoric when our grid goes unchanged, new investments not flowing to protect the grid, ensuring that if we make no changes a risk of future blackouts could be in the foreseeable future.

I am at a loss for words sometimes in the way we operate here. I love the institution, I love the ability to come on the floor, to have great debates on public policy, but eventually you have to move on. A majority has to speak its will and especially in the needs that were addressed earlier on energy. It is so vital to our economy. It is so vital to our national security. It is so vital for the things that we take for granted.

I remember reading an analysis of our use of electricity in our homes and power tools and all the neat little gadgets we have. The average citizen, because of our ability of using electricity and machines and technology, it is like we have 340 servants. The stuff that we are able to do because of the use of electricity and machines would be similar to having many, many servants doing our every whim.

That is part of the reason why we have prospered so greatly in this country, because we are willing to take risks, we are willing to take capital, put it at risk, hoping to get a return. And when we want the economy to move forward, when we want job creation, when we want to keep manufacturing, one of the major costs in the manufacturing is the energy cost.

But yet we are hamstrung, I think, because of political calculations on an upcoming election that we do not want to see improvement in the economy, that we do not want to see job creation, that we want to complain about no security on our electricity grid. We still want to see higher costs for natural gas. We want to see high gas prices.

They want to blame this administration, the only administration that has brought a comprehensive energy bill before the legislative body and the House and the Senate has been vetted and voted on. Again, very hypocritical and embarrassing to my point of view.

As we continue to focus on the manufacturing jobs, I find some relief in the debate that there is a difference between the payroll survey and the household survey on jobs and job creation. But, having said that, even though the numbers are better, the job loss statistics are only based upon payrolls.

So in my district in southern Illinois, there are a lot of farmers. They are self-employed. They are not counted on the payroll surveys because they are self-employed. So in all these jobs statistics they are not there, because they are not salaried.

But we do know that the manufacturing economy is stressed. If we want to ensure that we have job creation, we are going to move a highway bill. I think it is going to be a good bill. It is going to bring, obviously, leveraging dollars from the Federal Government and State governments to be able to build roads and infrastructure; and we want that.

Listen to what the Department of Commerce says about job creation in this energy bill. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, America loses 12,389 jobs for every billion we spend on energy imports. And, of course, we spend a lot on energy imports. At today's oil prices that means America is sending more than 1.7 million jobs overseas for oil every year.

We have oil in this country. We have it, as we talked about before, in ANWR. We have it on the continental shelf. Illinois is the tenth leading oil-producing state. A lot of people do not know that. A lot of our wells are marginal wells. They take energy to get the crude oil out of the ground. We have a gusher that was hit about a year and a half ago.

It is new technology. It drills underneath a wildlife preserve. It is producing for us a million barrels a year, which is a pretty good add toward meeting the demands that we have here.

It is not going to solve our problems. We are still going to have needs for export, but we do have great natural gas reserves in this country. We have got enough, and I am continuing to look at my friend on the Committee on Resources because they deal with this all the time, to meet our natural gas demands for 25 years, if we would just get access to them; and this is all not natural wildlife refuges in pristine areas. It is Bureau of Land Management scrub land. It is nothing that we even need to worry about other than it is the Federal Government's land, and we cannot even permit ourselves to go and look for natural gas reserves. Again, it just boggles your mind.

An estimated 85,000 jobs have been lost by the U.S. chemical makers since natural gas prices began to rise in mid-2000. If we cannot get natural gas at an affordable price, more and more the production facilities will be forced to pack up and leave the country.

One of our problems in this whole fuel debate is we have not built a new refinery in 25 years in this country, and we have a Balkanized fuel market, which means we have specific fuels for specific reasons.

I always tell the story, I fly into St. Louis. I am a St. Louis metropolitan Member of Congress. I live over in Illinois, and my hometown is Collinsville, but if I were to fly in and we get picked

up, I would have to go to the northern part of my district, the State capital of Springfield, and I would have to gas up the car before I took the drive. Well, the gas that I put in in Missouri would be different than the gas, regular unleaded, would be different than the gas in my hometown of Collinsville which is only 30 minutes from the airport, which would be different from the gas in Springfield, Illinois, regular unleaded, only 90 miles north. Three different blends of fuel in less than a 200-mile area.

Now, when people ask why are we having a gas crisis, I will tell you one reason is we cannot move product from point A to point B because it is not the proper mix for a proper region. You know what the energy bill does? It addresses this. There are 48 different fuel mixes in this country, and it tries to pare them down to five. It still says you need different fuels for different regions; but let us get realistic and say five regionally, that way you can move product when the supply and demand equation goes wacky. It is a great provision. It probably would have been helpful in this time of our energy needs.

The energy bill will help create or maintain over 156,000 full-time and part-time jobs in my home State of Illinois. That is how important this energy bill is for me, just my parochial interest, as a Member from Illinois.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly testified that energy prices are the single greatest threat to job creation and the continued growth of an otherwise burgeoning economy; but instead of getting a national energy policy, the people of America wait. They see energy prices rising higher and higher. They see jobs in manufacturing disappear because a plant closes due to high energy prices. They see us sending billions of dollars to foreign countries to buy oil. What they do not see is an energy bill.

The House passed the energy bill conference report, and we are still waiting, obviously, for the other body to at least do something. It is time for Congress to send an energy bill to the President that will create and maintain needed jobs across this country.

This is an important debate, and I applaud my colleague for organizing this Special Order because in the public policy arena, I mean, we have to be in the arena. We have to be debating the major issues of our time that not only affect us for the next election cycle, but really this is a comprehensive energy plan that will affect our children and our grandchildren.

So I applaud my colleague from Colorado. I hope to stay around for a few minutes and maybe can add based upon what other things are mentioned or added, but I really appreciate that.

Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. Actually, he has mentioned some of the things that I probably should have mentioned, being a little more parochial. I am so passionate about this because for southern Illinois this bill is the best bill I think we will ever see coming across the pike.

And why would I say that? First of all, if you looked at a geological map of what is called the Illinois coal basin, it in essence is the entire State of Illinois, with the exception of Chicago and the suburbs. It actually bleeds over into Indiana, and it bleeds over into Kentucky. It has as much energy resources there, 250 years of Btu burning capability, as Saudi Arabia has oil. Why will we not have access and use of those energy issues?

Illinois is also a highly nuclearized State. We have 11 operating nuclear facilities in the State of Illinois. As my colleague from Colorado said, nuclear power is, as far as emission-wise, there are no emissions, but of course we have concerns with individuals.

I want the public to understand base load generating, which is the everyday needs for electricity, just to run the lights on average the whole year, and then peak load generating, which is the times where you really need additional electricity, and that is best met with natural gas, where you can turn it on and turn it off. But base load generating is those standard fuels that we have used for many, many years: hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear power. They have to be part of a national energy policy, and in our bill they are, they remain, and that will help us have safety and security in the energy markets for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for again managing this hour on energy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the American Legion, a noble organization, chartered by Congress in 1919. The American Legion turned 85 this week and its members across our Nation are celebrating this historic event.

I'm proud to report that my home district celebrated this occasion recently at an event hosted by Retired Air Force Colonel Ted Buck of Mt. Vernon. He served 22 years active duty including 30 months during the Vietnam War. He received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, The Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with a Silver Star and the Purple Heart. He was also awarded the Legion of Merit award for his duty as a pilot for Dr. Henry Kissinger on his historic shuttle diplomacy.

I mention Colonel Buck by name because he puts a face on an organization made up of many heroic men and women who, like Colonel Buck, have put their lives on the line for this Nation. While patriotism and support for our men and women in uniform comes in and out of favor here in Washington, D.C. our Nation is blessed to have an organization that exists to meet the needs of our veterans. I consider myself fortunate to be a member of the American Legion and I'm honored to have the opportunity to wish them a happy 85th birthday. I speak for all of my colleagues in wishing the American Legion many more years to continue their work to insure appropriate respect for the American veteran and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Medicare prescription drug bill and one of the other great benefits that has come to our Nation, and that has been in the physician payment arena.

First, this law will block the impending physician payment cuts that were scheduled for 2004 and 2005, as well as give physicians increases of 1.5 percent for the next 2 years. In Illinois where we are losing physicians because of medical malpractice issues, having a provision that keeps doctors in Illinois is very, very critical. As a result of overturning the cuts and increasing the payments, Illinois stands to keep 400 million for Illinois physicians and the patients they serve. The geographic payment adjuster has been set at 1.0 in 2004 through 2006, which affects how physicians are paid in different regions of the country. The agreement also provides for physician scarcity bonus payments from 2005 to 2007. These grants go to those who practice in areas where there is a shortage of physicians.

Mr. Speaker, there is a shortage of physicians in Illinois because of medical malpractice, and physicians are leaving the State. At least in the Medicare prescription drug bill, there is help for keeping some of those.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank today's guest chaplain who talked about the blessings of leadership on this great Nation, which is our task at hand. One of those tasks was the Medicare Modernization Act, which provided great help to this country at large.

I want to focus primarily on one part of the Medicare prescription drug plan and the representation of the most generous package ever to rural health care providers. The Medicare law equalizes payments so that rural and suburban hospitals receive billions in much-needed relief over the next decade. They will receive continued standardized amounts of assistance without pause, increased help for DSH rural and small urban hospitals, adjusted payments to low volume hospitals to provide more equitable reimbursements for health care costs, and greater flexibility for rural and small urban hospitals to have more graduate medical residents providing better care.

We should not have a discrepancy between the care in urban and suburban areas and rural health care. The Medicare Modernization Act is the best health care package that rural America has ever seen. I am glad it was passed, and I look forward to the implementation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the upcoming enlargement of NATO when Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are added as official members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Each of these nations, formerly part of the Soviet bloc, has emerged from their long struggle towards freedom as examples of the good that can come from people working together towards a common goal--in this case democracy and individual freedom.

As one of the co-chairs of the Baltic Caucus and a fourth generation Lithuanian, I can personally attest to the efforts and personal sacrifices that the people of these nations have been making for many decades now. Their determination to rid themselves and their countries of communist and dictatorial rule is a humbling lesson for those of us who have never known life without freedom.

We should welcome their commitment to freedom and provide them with the support they need to help insure that these growing democracies will flourish and become role models for other nations yearning for the same. Adding these nations to NATO is an extremely important step forward in our efforts to promote freedom and in our efforts against worldwide terrorism.

Already, many of these nations have made tremendous contributions to our efforts to stabilize Iraq and have a lasting impact in bringing peace to the Middle East. Clearly, these are nations that recognize the world beyond their own borders.

I am extremely proud to welcome Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia into NATO. I especially want to congratulate the many citizens and patriots in these nations and across the world who have struggled to get us to this historic moment. Your efforts will make a difference for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I would be glad to.

Mr. Speaker, I have not checked my colleague's voting record, but that is probably a good assumption.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about a couple of provisions on the Medicare prescription drug bill. I have been to town hall meetings, three hospitals in my community, I have been to some editorial boards. It is an issue that the public needs to hear from us about.

This bill has passed and will become law, and we are going to find out real soon how helpful this bill is. Come June, the discount cards are going to get mailed out, and then the proof is going to be in the pudding. Either they are going to lower costs and people get access to drugs; or they are not. Either way, we are held accountable by the way we vote.

The first provision I would like to mention is it is voluntary. Voluntary means you can do it if you want, you do not have to do it if you do not want to, which is very different in the ideological spectrum of debate. Republicans believe in freedom. Our primary principle that we stand for is freedom; and freedom allows individuals to choose one way or the other. The freedom aspect is whether they want to be a part of a prescription drug system that supports and helps, or seniors do not want to. We trust that seniors will be able to make choices that best fit them. That is laudable, and I would rather be on the side of trusting seniors than saying, no, the Federal Government has to do it for them because our seniors cannot do it themselves.

The other thing I would like to mention is what is on this chart. There is a debate out there that there is not going to be any negotiation for lower costs of drugs. Well, obviously, the prescription drug cards and the program itself is not going to be prohibited from using the market forces and the number of people in the plan to exercise buying leverage on the prescription drug industry. It is pretty clear.

Mr. Speaker, that also brings competition to the negotiation of prices. If we just have the government negotiating, first of all, it is not a for-profit entity. It is not going to have the incentive to drive a hard bargain; it is just going to set prices with no return. But if we have a handful of companies competing to service a senior population in a competitive model, if you believe in freedom and competition and all of those things that we do, we are going to get a better product. I am excited, and I supported the bill. I think it will be helpful for seniors. I wanted to highlight that on the prescription drug issue.

One other aspect of the prescription drug issue is the number one thing that seniors came up to me before the vote that they were concerned about was whether they would lose the coverage that they had that was promised to them in their pension and benefit plans. They would pull me off the parade route or after church, wherever I was, Will I lose it? There are 41 million seniors in the Medicare system, and 13 million are covered by prescription

drug plans through their pension and benefit plans. Thirteen million. We could never assume that additional cost, so we have to provide a provision in this to incentivize the pension and benefit plans to keep providing. That is a promise that we provided to these seniors, and that is in the bill. So we met their need.

They did ask us, and because it would be very destructive for us, already trying to be fiscally conscious, to add $13 million more entitlements to a system when they are already receiving benefits.

The Medicare prescription drug bill is not just about prescription drugs, though. It is the best rural health care package ever passed on the floor of this House. Now, I represent southern Illinois; I have 30 counties. They stretch from as many as 250,000 people in one county to 5,000 in another. I border Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri. The best rural health care package ever passed by the House of Representatives was in this Medicare prescription drug bill for community hospitals, for critical care hospitals, and for rural home health care agencies. That is part of this debate. So people who want to try to change this Medicare prescription drug bill, they really are threatening the great provisions that have already been passed that will help rural health care throughout not just Illinois but throughout the country.

The other thing that I wanted to highlight was the preventive medicine aspects of this Medicare bill. I always talk about modern medicine, and I think the debate when you identify when Medicare was established in the 1960s, what has stayed the same. We do not drive the same cars that were built in the 1960s, we do not live in the same style homes, or use the same type of electrical appliances. We have computers and turbo-charged engines. The only thing that has stayed the same is Medicare. We would pay for reactive measures, not proactive measures. In other words, we would pay to try to fix the blindness, to deal with the amputations, to deal with the effects caused by diabetes; but we would not pay for the drugs needed to treat diabetes, and that is a silly way of doing business. First of all, there is no cost benefit in that. You are a loser financially when you do that.

So the preventive aspect, there is going to be a Welcome to Medicare physical. Seniors will get a physical to establish where they are in the health care continuum, initially to make diagnosis. And, obviously, early diagnosis of major diseases through the application of prescription drugs is cheaper and healthier for all involved.

I have taken enough time, and I have a lot of colleagues on the floor, and I know they are eager to talk about the great benefits of the prescription drug bill. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning of my 8th year here, and that therapy cap issue has been presented to us year after year for 8 years, and I think it is right to bring that up. I am just sorry that the gentlewoman had to break her arm to make a point for that therapy issue.