Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the victims of the heat wave that gripped Europe through the month of August. Record- setting temperatures across the continent resulted in crop-ravaging drought, devastating forest fires and the deaths of thousands.

Cities across Europe from London to Paris to Rome experienced temperatures never before seen in recorded history. A lack of rainfall and soaring heat left crops withered and unusable. The economic costs of such losses have

been measured in the billions. Forest fires burned thousands of acres, left hundreds homeless and several dead. Sadly, thousands lost their lives as a result of dehydration, fever and other heat-related illness. In France alone, more than ten thousand people lost their lives.

Citizens of Europe have not hesitated to bow their heads and join us in grief during times of tragedy, especially to remember the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Let us take a moment to express our sympathies and share in the grief of the family and friends of those who succumbed during Europe's recent human tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 859 days since President Bush and the Republican Party embarked on their economic plan of our country. During that time the national debt has increased by $1,169,750,943,211.93. According to the Web site for the Bureau of Public Debt at the U.S. Treasury yesterday at 4:30 p.m. eastern daylight time the national outstanding debt was $6,810,076,329,570.70.

Furthermore, in fiscal year 2003, interest on our national debt, or the ``debt tax'' is $304,978,878,641.11 through August 31.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs conferees to do two simple things, two things that the House bill does not accomplish: one, it asks them to provide a guaranteed prescription drug benefit for all seniors; number two, it asks them to preserve Medicare as we know it today.

Upon signing the Medicare law in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson said, ``Every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of illness in his old age.'' It says ``every citizen.'' Yet, the bill passed by this body does nothing to guarantee a prescription drug benefit for any citizen and attempts to privatize Medicare in 2010.

The proponents of this bill trumpet choice and competition between private plans as the way to provide the best benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Yet, the truth of the matter is the only choice that will be made will be made by private insurance companies choosing not to serve rural areas. In fact, 80 percent of rural Medicare beneficiaries, including all of the State of Mainers, currently live in areas that private insurance plans have chosen not to serve. Yet, this legislation does not contain a fall-back provision. Medicare+Choice has not worked in many areas, including my State of Maine, and there is a very good chance that this drug bill will not work either.

Where does that leave rural Americans? Out in the cold without a benefit. Without a fall-back provision, we are abandoning all rural seniors at a time when they need it the most.

As if the problems with this bill were not enough, it contains a premium assistance provision that aims to privatize Medicare by phasing out the traditional fee-for-service plan and replacing it with a voucher program in 2010.

This harmful provision would force Medicare to compete with private HMOs that will appeal to younger, healthier seniors, leaving traditional Medicare with those seniors who need a more comprehensive benefit. This change in the pool of beneficiaries will cause Medicare premiums to rise and become unaffordable, jeopardizing the long-term viability of the traditional Medicare program and abandoning seniors yet once again.

Do not be fooled by the arguments for premium assistance. It is just another step towards privatization of Medicare and elimination of the only plan available to seniors in areas such as the State of Maine, the traditional Medicare plan. Forcing rural seniors into private plans and making them give up traditional Medicare without a guarantee of coverage is not the right approach and is a disservice to rural Americans, but that is what this bill would actually do.

Like my colleagues who will also speak in support of this motion, I want to pass a real prescription drug benefit; but I will not vote for a plan that hurts America's seniors. Health care coverage is nothing if you do not have access to it. We have a historic opportunity to add a much-needed prescription drug benefit; but without guaranteed coverage, we have failed.

Let us take an important step today and guarantee coverage to all seniors by providing a real prescription drug benefit, not a thinly veiled attempt to privatize Medicare and abandon rural seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is wrong. This plan does not provide that every senior will have a plan. This plan, all it does is provide the right for an individual to buy a private plan. It does not guarantee that plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when we get through the smoke and mirrors of this bill passed by this House, it comes down that H.R. 1 aims to privatize Medicare in 2010. It does nothing to guarantee prescription drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas like the State of Maine. And actually, language in the bill prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating for lower-cost prescriptions. That is wrong. The current bill is a disservice to all seniors, and I urge Members to adopt changes made in this motion to give Medicare recipients present and future the benefit that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), we do not have to go back to 1965, I will quote the gentleman's words in 2003, ``To those who say that the bill would end Medicare as we know it, the answer is, we certainly hope so.'' That is a quote in 2003 from the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). I urge Members to adopt this motion.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XX, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Michaud moves:

1. To reject the provisions of subtitle C of title II of

the House bill.

2. The House recede to the Senate on the provisions to

guarantee access to prescription drug coverage under section

1860D-13(e) of the Social Security Act, as added by section

101(a) of the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1572 is a bill to designate the Federal Building in Pensacola, Florida, as the Winston E. Arnow United States Federal Courthouse.

Judge Arnow was a native son of Florida. He was born in 1911 in Micanopy, Florida, attended public schools, and graduated from the University of Florida in 1932. He received his law degree in 1933. Judge Arnow was a World War II veteran, serving in the infantry in the United States Army.

Although he graduated from college and law school during the Depression, Winston Arnow became the first research clerk at the Supreme Court of Florida. He then practiced law for 30 years in Gainesville. President Johnson appointed him to the Federal bench in 1968. In 1969, he became the senior judge, and served in that capacity until 1981. As senior judge, Judge Arnow continued his work on the bench until his death in 1994.

Judge Arnow was instrumental in enforcing civil rights law during the critical period from 1969 through 1978. He based his decisions on the strength of the Constitution, and his decisions leave a legacy of fairness and integrity. On the bench he was all business and showed no favoritism. His social and economic decisions had a profound effect on the social fabric of Northern Florida.

In 1972, Judge Arnow's decisions regarding the Naval Live Oaks Reservations ended a long and controversial dispute over ownership, when he declared the historic woodland in the Gulf to be owned by the citizens of the United States.

He was a warm and gracious judge, generous with his time and advice. Judge Arnow was a fearless decision-maker, known for integrity and honesty. This designation is a fitting tribute to his long and distinguished career. I support this legislation and urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the Singapore and Chile agreements are wrong for labor standards, they are wrong on the environment, they are wrong on the economy, and they are wrong for the American people.

I have been a mill worker at Great Northern Paper Company for over 30 years. I have had firsthand experience with the devastation of the so- called free trade agreements on the U.S. economy. I know what they really mean to the working people of this country. Almost no one else in this Chamber can claim that experience. These kinds of agreements are bad for the working American people.

NAFTA has been nothing but a disaster in my State of Maine, costing over 24,000 manufacturing jobs alone since NAFTA came into effect. As a matter of fact, in some parts of my district, the unemployment rate is over 38 percent. Working people do not want the programs or handouts that we have created because of trade agreements, they want to keep their jobs.

No, I do not oppose all free trade agreements categorically; but they must be truly free, and they must be truly fair for our workers. Singapore and Chile are neither.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with these agreements is made far worse by the Trade Promotion Authority which shuts out the people's voice and even prevents Members of Congress from holding negotiators responsible for harmful and misguided policies. That is why today I am introducing a bill to repeal Trade Promotion Authority.

If the people had a voice in how these agreements are reached and we could amend sections of these agreements that are lacking, then we might have fair and free trade agreements. In fact, we might not even need this debate today.

So I urge my colleagues to stand up for the working Americans who sent us

here to fight for them, and I urge my colleagues to vote against both agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 2357, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003 and I would like to thank Congressman Evans, Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for introducing this important measure.

As we speak, our young men and women in uniform are selflessly risking their lives in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The bravery that they show reflects the proud tradition of this nation's military and demonstrates the great sacrifices made by our veterans and their families. America owes a great debt to its veterans.

Recently, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Veterans released its final report, which noted ``a significant mismatch in VA between demand and available funding.'' To ensure funding for veterans' health care, the report recommends ``modifications to the current budget and appropriations process by using a mandatory funding mechanism.''

The ``Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003'' would address the findings and recommendations of the Task Force by creating a guaranteed funding stream for veterans' health care. We need a process that ensures that our veterans do not have to wait for discretionary funding each fiscal year, and that is why I support H.R. 2357.

The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars have built a coalition to fight for the passage of mandatory funding for veterans' health care. It is one of the highest priorities for the veterans of this country and it should be one of the highest priorities for this Congress.

We need to work to ensure that both bodies pass legislation to guarantee funding for veterans' health care. The veterans of this country need to know that this Congress is serious about caring for their needs, and that this country keeps its promises.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of H.R. 1516, the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003.

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Evans for their leadership on the full Committee. I also want to recognize and thank Henry Brown, Chairman of the Benefits Subcommittee, for his good work and bipartisan efforts in working with me to craft this legislation and bring this measure to the House floor.

I am pleased that in H.R. 1516 we are authorizing the establishment of five new national cemeteries according to the VA's most current burial needs assessment report. Our veterans who served and protected us deserve nothing less than a proper final resting place.

Fortunately, the veterans in my district in Maine are not wanting for additional cemetery space thanks to a new state veterans' cemetery recently established in Caribou, ME. However, far too many communities are in need of a new veteran's cemetery. We must provide the resources to meet this need--It is our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sound measure. I urge all Members to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor those who served in the Korean War and their families. Today, we are on the floor of the House of Representatives to consider House Concurrent Resolution 212 to pay tribute to the veterans of the Korean War and to support the goals of the Year of the Korean War Veteran. I fully support this legislation and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Fifty-three years ago, this country asked its citizens to defend the freedom of the South Korean people from an invading army and 1,800,000 Americans answered that call. Joined by twenty-one allied nations, under the banner of the United Nations, these brave Americans fought through some of the most terrible and horrific conditions in the history of warfare to protect the freedom of people in need.

Fifty years ago a cease fire brought the fighting in the Korean War to an end and allowed our brave soldiers to be reunited with their waiting and anxious families. Sadly, not everyone made it back home. Over 36,000 Americans died during three years of fighting and we honor their memory today.

Those that did return home were not greeted with the proper `welcome home' that had been given to veterans of previous wars. Korean War veterans were not shown the recognition, gratitude and honor they deserved. For their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom and liberty, the brave men and women who served in the Korean War became veterans of the `forgotten' war.

There are over 22,000 veterans from the era of the `forgotten' war living in Maine, and I rise today to let them know that their bravery and sacrifice, and the bravery and sacrifice of their families will never be forgotten. I am pleased that the House is considering this important legislation. I fully support House Concurrent Resolution 212 to honor the veterans of the Korean War and their families and to recognize and support the goals and ideals of the Year of the Korean War Veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I am offering a motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for her leadership in offering the first motion last night.

Mr. Speaker, the recent tax bill neglected 12 million children in America's low-income working families by cutting them out of the child tax credit plan. According to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in my home district in Maine 21,000 working families were cut out. There were 34,000 children in those families. These are families who work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules and who are still left out in the cold. This is just plain wrong.

It is wrong that the wealthier taxpayers will start getting their checks mailed to them next week, and these families will get nothing. I find it completely ironic that the Congress is going on vacation on the very day that 12 million children will be left behind on this child tax credit. Between the child tax credit and the Head Start bill that the House may consider in the coming weeks, the leadership of the House is delivering a one-two punch to these children and their families, and then they are turning around and skipping town. What a disgrace.

What does the congressional leadership have against working families? Why is it that 34,000 poor children in my district in Maine are not good enough for them? Their tax bill gives $90 billion of tax cuts exclusively to millionaires. It would cost a fraction of that to fix the problem and extend child tax credits, but they cannot seem to find a dime for the people who work and who are poor.

This motion to instruct does a simple few things. It tells the conferees to agree to the Senate language that provides for tax credit checks to be mailed immediately to low-income families. It provides that the tax credit be extended to personnel in combat zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It provides assistance for the families of those who died in the Columbia shuttle disaster, and it ensures that this minimal cost is fully offset. The conferees could easily accomplish these changes and bring us a final bill within 2 days, which is what this motion calls for.

The right thing for Congress to do is to pass this motion to pass a child tax credit and to give working families the tax relief that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the good gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and would just comment that this is not politics. This is the exact same motion that that House passed on June 12.

(Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is a proven fighter for working families and has been a leader in the whole health care area as well.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Who gets to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I mentioned earlier, the right thing for Congress to do is to pass this motion, to pass the child tax credit, and to give the working families a tax relief that they deserve. A lot of people out there are hurting. There are certain areas actually in the State of Maine, labor market areas, where the unemployment rate is over 38 percent. When we look at other labor market areas, they are in double-digit numbers. Working families do need this tax relief. So I hope this body would support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House in the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be

instructed as follows:

1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment

(not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate

payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by

reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were

entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment

(not included in the House amendment) that provides families

of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other

combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the

individuals serving in the combat zone.

3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report all of the other provisions of the

Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference

report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by

other provisions.

4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of the

conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to

include in the conference report other tax benefits for

military personnel and the families of the astronauts who

died in the Columbia disaster.

5. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after

the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the

Senate

conferees and the House conferees shall file a conference

report consistent with the preceding provisions of this

instruction, not later than the second legislative day after

adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the House of Representatives considered a plan that would supposedly create a Medicare prescription drug benefit. While some touted the plan as an innovative approach, the fact is that when you look past the smoke and mirrors, it turns out to be a very bad deal for Maine's seniors. In fact, the House plan could make the current situation for seniors a lot worse: it will do nothing to control rising prescription costs, it will jeopardize the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan that seniors enjoy right now, it has a large gap in coverage that will force seniors to pay thousands of dollars out of their pockets, and it may cause employers to drop their health coverage.

We all know that drug prices are spiraling out of control. Maine seniors are forced to take bus trips to Canada to buy affordable prescription drugs. Our best hope for getting affordable medicines to people is to lower prices--that is why Maine passed the innovative Maine Rx law, and that's why I introduced a national version of the bill called America Rx. Yet, the House legislation does nothing to control rising costs. In fact, this plan expressly prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from ever negotiating with drug companies for better prices. Pharmaceutical companies are reaping huge profits while seniors are often forced to choose between medicine and food.

Furthermore, this plan doesn't guarantee a prescription benefit for seniors and it actually jeopardizes current Medicare coverage. The proposed benefit is entirely run by the private insurance industry and has no fallback provision of areas with no private plan. Without a fallback provision, there is no guarantee that private plans will be established in largely rural areas like Maine--so our seniors will be left in the cold. This has happened before with Medicare Plus Choice, and it is very likely to happen again, meaning that Maine's seniors would get nothing from this bill.

In addition, this bill also contains a ``premium assistance'' provision that aims to phase out traditional fee-for-service Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. This is just another step toward total privatization of Medicare and the elimination of the only plan available to seniors in areas such as Maine--the traditional Medicare plan. Forcing seniors into private plans, and making them give up Medicare, is not the right approach--but that's what this bill would do.

This bill also has a very large gap in coverage seniors would have to continue to pay a monthly premium, but would receive absolute no benefit fro drug costs between $2,000-$4,900. Having this kind of a gap in coverage is like telling people that their auto insurance doesn't cover accidents in June, July and August.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, there is a provision in this bill that does not allow for retiree coverage to count toward the out-of- pocket spending cap. It has been estimated that the bill passed by the House would result in up to \1/3\ of employers dropping their retiree coverage, the seniors who enjoy these plans would be forced into a Medicare plan with fewer benefits. The House should not pass a plan that forces seniors to lose what benefits they have.

For all these reasons, groups from AARP to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare have sharply criticized this plan. I supported a number of alternative bills that would address the problems with this plan and vastly improve the benefit available to seniors. Unfortunately, the leadership of the House was more concerned about pushing any bill through as quickly as possible than with providing a quality benefit for seniors, and they weren't willing to fix the serious flaws in the bill that could hurt seniors. In fact, the House leadership refused to allow even one real amendment to the legislation.

I want to pass a real prescription drug benefit--but I would not vote for a plan that hurts Maine's seniors. I am disappointed with the legislation that was passed by the House, however the fight for a real Medicare benefit is not over. It is my hope that this legislation will be improved in the upcoming conference with the Senate. I will continue to fight to make sure that all Maine seniors receive an affordable and real Medicare prescription benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 2407.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1460, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Benefits Improvement Act of 2003, which I am a proud co-sponsor of. I also would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for their work in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

This bill includes several provisions related to veterans who are owners of small businesses or who aspire to be.

I appreciate the efforts of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo); and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez); as well as the staff of the Committee on Small Business for their assistance with those provisions.

H.R. 1460 would authorize the use of VA education assistance to pay for nondegree and noncredit business courses at approved institutions. This will enable veterans to obtain educational opportunities that meet their small business goals. This legislation would also improve the ability of service-disabled veterans who own small businesses to do business with the Federal Government.

As a member of both the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am pleased that we are considering this legislation to help service-disabled veterans to obtain government contracts. These men and women who have sacrificed so much for this country, they are disabled as a result of their service to our Nation. The least that we can do is to say if you own a small business, then you should have the opportunity to obtain contracts from the Federal Government.

I am particularly disappointed about the number of service-disabled veterans who are obtaining Federal contracts. The number is already unacceptably small, and it has actually decreased over the past year. As Angela Styles of the Office of Management and Budget testified earlier this year, the Federal Government's record for contracts to service-disabled veterans is abysmal.

This bill will help improve that record. Section 4 of the bill includes provisions from H.R. 761, introduced by the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and by the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). These provisions would allow servicemembers such as those seriously disabled during the Iraq War to obtain special adapted housing grants before being discharged from military service. These grants are available only to the most severely disabled veterans.

Under current law, servicemembers with severe disabilities may have their hospital discharge delayed if, for example, they do not have a wheelchair-accessible home available. But we can speed up the process by giving them their assistance immediately. Since they will meet the requirements as soon as they are discharged, there is no reason to delay providing them with assistance while their discharge is pending. This is a sensible, cost-effective and humane provision.

Section 5 of the bill would reinstate a particularly effective VA vendee home loan program, and I am puzzled as to what the reasons were for terminating such an effective, cost-saving program; and I am pleased that Congress is taking action to reinstate it.

H.R. 1460 also includes a provision of H.R. 241, which removes the time limitation on accrued benefits paid to the families of veterans who died while a claim for veterans benefits is pending. I have veterans in my district in Maine with claims which have been pending for many years. I hope none of them passes away while waiting for a decision. Should they do so, I want their families to see the full retroactive benefit to which the veteran is entitled.

I urge all Members to support this bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I note with sadness the passing of a long-time friend of this Nation's veterans and former chair of our committee, Bob Stump. Although I did not have the opportunity to work with Mr. Stump, I appreciate the legacy of bipartisan cooperation he has left with the Committee on Veterans Affairs, similar to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith).

I would like to extend my sympathy and that of all members of this body to his wife and his children.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this week we are prepared to debate a Medicare prescription drug package. We are focusing all of our energy on trying to pay for expensive prescription drugs. But one important aspect of this debate is missing; that is, finding a way to make drugs less expensive to begin with.

The fact is that drug prices continue to rise and are spiraling out of control, forcing more people to choose between medicine and food. Talking about paying for prescription drugs without talking about prices is like going to a grocery store telling them to fill up your cart and handing them a blank check. We are letting the company decide how much to charge and then we are proposing to have the government foot the bill.

Last month, I met with a group of seniors in my district in Bangor, Maine who were on a bus trip to Canada so they could buy the medicine they need at a price that they could afford. And guess what they saved? Out of 18 senior citizens, they saved over $19,000, just by crossing the border. That is a crying shame.

Like most Members of this House, I believe that expanding access to prescription drugs is one of the most important issues that we face. That is why I have taken the creative Maine Rx approach, which just received a favorable ruling from the United States Supreme Court, and brought it to this Congress.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to make prescriptions more affordable for all Americans, I introduced H.R. 1694, the America Rx Act of 2003. America Rx uses the power of the free market to negotiate lower prescription prices for all Americans who lack adequate coverage, similar to what they do in the Veterans Administration. We are the only industrialized Nation that does not negotiate lower cost for prescriptions, and it is time for a change.

Like Maine Rx, America Rx is a fresh approach that will not cost the taxpayers a single dime. This approach is simple, it is fair, and it works. It is time for America's seniors to gain access to affordable, lifesaving prescription drugs. We will be doing all Americans a disservice if we do not include ways to contain the cost in the upcoming debate.