Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Army Pfc. Jonathan Cheatham, of Camden, AR, who died on July 26, 2003, fighting for his country in Iraq. I am saddened by this tragedy. I wish to recognize his life and achievements.

Jonathan attended Camden Fairview High School where he played soccer and the trumpet in the band. Upon graduation in 2002, Jonathan immediately entered the military. Jonathan served in the 489th Engineer Battalion of U.S. Army Reserve.

Jonathan gave his life to serve our country and will forever be remembered as a hero, a terrific son, and a courageous brother. My deepest condolences go out to his mother, Barbara Porchia, his sister, Portia Cheatham, family, friends, and those in his hometown of Camden whose lives he touched. I am sure Jonathan was proud of his service to the U. S. Army and to our country. I know he will be missed by his fellow soldiers, and all those who knew him and counted him as a friend. Furthermore, his fellow soldiers also know how much he contributed to the accomplishment of his unit's mission and to the U.S. Army. I will continue to keep Jonathan and his family in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

And to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), let me assure you that AARP no longer speaks for America's seniors. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is the Nation's second largest senior advocacy group. Unlike AARP, they are not in the pharmacy business, and they are not in the discount prescription card business. And Max Richmond, their executive director said what? He said, ``You ever heard of Medicare fraud? This Republican prescription drug bill is Medicare fraud.'' And let me tell you why: It is obscene that the Republicans in Congress would lock the door and refuse to allow the Democratic conferees in the room while this bill was being finalized. If that is not enough, now they are trying to use a parliamentary procedure to immediately bring this bill up for a vote, a bill that is 681 pages. It was received in

my office just a few hours ago. I have not read it all. It is 681 pages, and I just got it.

If there is any Republican here who has already read it, then they have been through some kind of speed reading course that I have not been through. But I have gotten through a few pages. Page 54 is a good place to start. Surely to goodness, no one here has read page 54, because if they have, they would not be asking for this bill to be brought up immediately. They would want time to read it, because page 54 says what? It says the Federal Government shall be prohibited from negotiating with the big drug manufacturers to bring down the high cost of medicine. And they call this a seniors bill? Give me a break.

And if that is not enough, my colleagues can turn to page 18 of the bill. Page 18 of the bill tells us what seniors are going to get, or, really, what seniors are not going to get. This is clearly a bill written by the big drug manufacturers and the big insurance companies, not to benefit our seniors, not to bring down the high cost of medicine, but to benefit the big drug manufacturers and the big insurance companies.

Make no mistake about it, seniors, it is important the Members here understand, understand what the seniors get in this bill. There is a $420 yearly premium, $35 a month. There is a $250 deductible, and then, from $250 to $2,250, Medicare pays 75 percent of the bill leaving the senior to pay 25 percent. That part sounds pretty good. But then from $2,250 all the way up to $5,100, guess what? The senior is back stuck paying the full price for the prescription drug while still being required, under this bill, to pay a $35-a-month premium.

This legislation boils down to this: Of the first $5,100 worth of medicine, seniors are going to still be stuck paying $4,020 while Members of Congress, who wrote and approved this bill, only pay $1,275.

Mr. Speaker, as the owner of a small town family pharmacy and a wife who is a pharmacist, I see seniors who cannot afford their medicine. So I came here to help our seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs. This bill does not do that.

This morning we must decide whether to decide with the big drug manufacturers or side with America's seniors. In 2001, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I sponsored a bipartisan bill that would truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, and the Republican leadership refused to give us a hearing or a vote on that issue, and now 2 years later the Republicans offer us a bill that does what? That says the Federal Government shall be prohibited from negotiating with the big drug manufacturers to bring down the high cost of medicine and provide seniors $1,080 worth of help on a $5,100 drug bill.

Have my colleagues ever heard of Medicare fraud? This is Medicare fraud.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, the Republican Congresswoman, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and I offered up a bipartisan plan that would truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, that recovered 80 percent of the cost of prescription drugs for our seniors, while taking on the big drug manufacturers, and the Republicans told us that we could not afford it. They said we could not afford $750 billion over 10 years.

But what has happened since then? They passed a $350 billion tax cut for the wealthy, and now they are proposing a $400 billion major prescription drug plan. I was not real good in math in high school, but I think I can figure that one out. That totals $750 billion. Two years later, we are getting a plan that does not even kick in until 2006. Our plan would be in effect today.

Seniors get $1,080 worth of help on the first $5,100 worth of medicine they need every year, and the Republicans even had the nerve at the urging of the big drug manufacturers to put language in the bill that says the Federal Government shall be prohibited from negotiating with the big drug manufacturers to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs. This is a bad bill. This is a bill that does not even fit our seniors, only the big drug manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding. And I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) for his comments and very thoughtful remarks this evening on behalf of America's seniors.

I have got to tell my colleagues that it is a frustrating time for me because, as was mentioned, my wife and I own a small-town family pharmacy. She is a pharmacist. And I have seen so many seniors walk through the doors of our pharmacy who either could not afford their medicine or could not afford to take it properly. And living in a small town, Prescott, Arkansas, population 3,400, I know a week or two later that senior is 16 miles down the road in Hope, Arkansas, in the hospital having a leg amputated, running up a $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 Medicare bill for other complications simply because they could not afford their medicine or could not afford to take it properly.

So I ran for Congress. I ran for Congress to try and modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. And I knew it was pretty partisan in Washington, but I thought if there was an issue that would not be a Democrat issue or a Republican issue but, rather, a seniors issue, this would be it. But I got to town and learned it is a big drug manufacturers' issue.

This is not a seniors bill we are going to be voting on this week. This is a bill written by the big drug manufacturers to benefit the big drug manufacturers. I am sick and tired of all this partisan bickering. I am sick and tired of Democrats being locked out, committee members being locked out of the room where they are writing this bill. If they get the drug manufacturers up out of the chairs at the table, they would have room for Members of Congress that have been elected like everyone else who had been appointed to that committee to address this issue. That is wrong and it is shameful, and it is a disgrace to our democracy.

There are several problems with this bill. There are really a lot of problems with it. Let me just list a few of them for my colleagues, if I may. If anyone has any doubt in their mind whether or not this bill was written by the big drug manufacturers, believe me, their fingerprints are all over it.

The Republican leadership actually had the nerve to put language in this bill that says the Federal Government shall be prohibited, prohibited, from negotiating with the big drug manufacturers to bring down the high cost of medicine. That is in the bill. And they call it a seniors' bill.

The second problem is the privatization aspect. Let me tell you why the big drug manufacturers want to see this Medicare prescription drug benefit privatized. You hear how drugs are cheaper, less expensive, less costly in other countries. It is true. I did a study about a year ago where we compared the price paid by seniors in Arkansas's 4th Congressional District on the five most commonly used brand-name drugs with the price paid by seniors on those same drugs in seven other countries. And what we found was startling. Seniors in my congressional district back home in Arkansas pay on average 110 percent more, 110 percent more than seniors pay on average in those other countries. Now, why is that? Because America is the only industrialized nation in the world where people go without health insurance.

In these other countries everybody has health insurance and in these other countries their governments tell the big drug manufacturers if you want your drug in our country, you are going to give us a discount. And they do. Well, the drug manufacturers know that if we have 40 million seniors all under one plan in America, then we too as a government will demand those kinds of discounts and rebates to help offset the cost of the program. Thus the reasoning for creating and privatizing a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Our parents, our grandparents are literally going to have hundreds of insurance companies knocking on their door, calling them on the phone, sending them mail all trying to sell them exactly the same policy because they want to spread those 40 million people every which way they can so no one will have the buying power to demand those discounts from the drug manufacturers.

This bill does nothing to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs. In fact, no insurance company has come forward to say they will offer a prescription drug plan for seniors. And that is why in this bill, the Republicans have put a $12 slush fund, $12 billion, they are just going to give to private insurance companies that will agree to offer a prescription drug benefit for seniors. There is a reason Medicare was created 38 years ago. Insurance is about spreading the risk. And the reality is with seniors there is no risk to spread. Seniors spend a lot of money on health care to either stay healthy or to get well. Privatizing Medicare will not work. If they get away with this, Social Security will be next.

Finally, the benefit itself. Number one is, as my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) said so eloquently, the benefit does not even start until 2006. Folks, any time there is a plan offered up that does not kick in until after the next election, you ought to be leery of it. This plan does not even kick in until 2006. And when it does, this is what everyone get, and when I explain what they get, they are going to have a clear understanding of why they want to make sure it does not kick in until after the next election:

There is a premium of about $35 a month, although they cannot tell you for sure what it will be, but they think somewhere around $35 a month. That is $420 a year. Then there is a deductible of $275 a year. Then from $275 worth of prescription drugs each year that a senior meets up to $2,200, the senior pays 25 percent and Medicare pays 75 percent. That part actually sounds pretty decent. So the senior is out $481.25 on that part. But listen to this: once the senior has spent $2,200 on prescription drugs in a year, and as a small-town pharmacy owner I can tell you for a lot of seniors that only takes about 3 or 4 or 5 months, once a senior spends $2,200, all the way up to $5,044, the senior is back paying the full cost of the prescription on their own. Medicare pays nothing. But, guess what? Medicare continues to bill you the $35-a-month premium.

That is $2,844 out of seniors' pockets.

Absolutely, good point, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey pointing that out.

The bottom line is, and you need a CPA to figure this thing out, but when you take all the numbers I just presented and add them up, and the bottom line, all this talk on the floor of the House of Representatives, the vote that is going to occur is going to boil down to this, that in 2006 seniors are going to get a prescription drug plan written by the big drug manufacturers that requires seniors to pay out of their own pocket $4,020.25 out of the first $5,044. Let me repeat that. Seniors under this plan, which does not even start until 2006, are going to pay $4,020.25 out of the first $5,044.

Contrast that to Members of Congress, the health insurance plan we have, and quite frankly, the health insurance plan that most people who are fortunate to have health insurance in America now is very similar. Members of Congress pay $1,261 on the first $5,044, with their insurance plan picking up the difference. So the Republican leadership thinks that they should only pay $1,261 on the first $5,044, but they want seniors, they want our mothers and grandmothers, to pay $4,020.25 on the first $5,044.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress pay 25 percent of the cost of the medicine, at least under the health plan that I am on and most of us are on. There are several options to choose from, and anyone with private health insurance, and again we have got 43.6 million people without health insurance in this country. Ten million of them unfortunately are children, but most people fortunate enough to have health insurance pay roughly 20 to 25 percent of the cost of the medicine. So in the first $5,044, Members of Congress pay $1,261, but the Republican national leadership wants our mothers and grandmothers and fathers and grandfathers to pay $4,020.25 out of the first $5,044, and that is a benefit that does not even kick in until 2006.

I will give them this. Starting in April of 2004, they are going to give our seniors a prescription drug discount card. You stay up late enough tonight and watch cable TV. They will be advertised on TV. You can buy them, and any discount that is realized from that card comes directly from your family pharmacy and not from the big drug manufacturer.

Again, they are not going to the root of the cause. Eighty-seven percent of the costs of medicine comes from the big drug manufacturer. This discount card does not discount any of the money paid by the big drug manufacturer, and so the savings amounts to 50 cents to $3. They did a study on this. This literally amounts to 50 cents to $3.

So you take a senior that is on six prescriptions a month and a $500 drug bill, let us say it is $3 per prescription. That is an $18 savings. How in the world is that going to help seniors choose between the light bill, rent, or groceries?

Number 1, the discount is not being paid by the drug manufacturer, which is 87 percent of the cost to the manufacturer. The discount is being paid by your family pharmacy in amounts of 50 cents to $3.

More importantly, and I do not think this has ever been raised on the floor of this House, but this bill preempts State laws that regulate discount cards. About half the States in America, because these cards are so fly-by-night and so fraudulent and have ripped off so many seniors, because they find out the benefit they are getting from it is less than what they charge per month for the card, that most States in America now have regulations to monitor and control these so-called discount prescription drug cards. This bill preempts those State laws. There will be no regulation of these discount card companies.

Max Richtman is the head of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I want to say they are a bipartisan group. They are not. They are nonpartisan, and they are nonprofit. That is the Nation's second largest senior advocacy group, and I think he put it pretty well. He said, Have you ever heard of Medicare fraud? This Republican prescription drug bill, it is Medicare fraud. It is nothing more than a false hope and a false promise for our seniors.

This is America, and we can do better than this by our seniors, by our greatest generation.

We have primarily tonight talked about the Medicare prescription drug benefit, or the lack of it, under the Republican prescription drug plan, but this 1,100-page bill, which they have not even allowed us to see yet, has other provisions in it that I think are worth noting, two primarily.

One is that it increases part B deductibles for seniors in 2005, and then they will be indexed to grow based on part B expenditures for each year thereafter. They are going to increase part B deductibles. That is nothing more than a tax on sick seniors.

Secondly, a lot of seniors rely on oxygen to stay alive in their home and hospitals beds, and they are getting those things now through a local supplier. They have the freedom to choose. This is going to be put out for competitive bidding. Competitive bidding. That means that if your oxygen machine breaks or you have an ice storm, and you have to have a portable tank, and your supplier may be someone that lives 5 or 6 hours away, that is a serious issue.

This bill has a lot more problems than simply the lack of a prescription drug benefit. But I will close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying this: If seniors cannot afford the first $2,200 worth of medicine, tell me how they are going to afford the next $2,844? Because that is the gap. From $2,200 to $5,044 they are stuck paying the monthly premium of around $35, but they get no help at all. They are footing the bill entirely on their own. And that is wrong.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me time.

I rise in support of the motion to instruct, to instruct the conferees that we accept in this agriculture appropriations bill the same language that has already been passed on the House floor as it deals with reimportation, and let me tell you why.

In June of last year, I did a study where we compared the price paid by seniors in Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District with the price paid by seniors in six other countries. And we found that the price paid by seniors in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas is 110 percent more on average than the price paid by seniors in places like Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Prevacid, 30 milligrams. In our congressional district it costs $128 a month. The average foreign price, $55 a month. Celebrex, 200 milligrams. In my congressional district, $81 a month. The average foreign price, $35 a month. Prilosec, in my district $129 a month. The average foreign price, $56 a month; and the list goes on and on and on.

The drug manufacturers wrote this so-called Medicare prescription drug bill, which is not for our seniors. It is a windfall for the big drug manufacturers, and now we see their fingerprints all over this bill today to go to conference on the ag appropriations bill.

Velma from my district writes and says she takes seven prescriptions a month. It costs her $560, and she is trying to get by and live on $604 a month.

Mary from my district says she takes four prescriptions a month that cost her $401.88, and she is trying to get by on $586 a month.

I rise in support of the motion to instruct on behalf of the seniors of America so we can take on the big drug manufacturers and the Republican leadership and finally bring down the high cost of prescription drugs for our seniors. This is America, and we can do better than this by our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, after years of talk about the need to help our seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, it appears that sometime this week, or perhaps this weekend, this Congress will be voting. They will be voting on a bill that is nothing more than a false hope and a false promise for America's seniors. In fact, Max Richmond, the head of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a nonpartisan, not bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, has been quoted as saying, ``Have you ever heard of Medicare fraud? Well, this Republican prescription drug bill is Medicare fraud.''

Let me tell you why. As I see it, there are three major problems with the bill. Problem number one: the Republican leadership actually had the nerve to put language in the bill that says the Federal Government shall be prohibited from negotiating with the big drug manufacturers to bring down the high cost of medicine. That is in the bill. Then they call it a seniors bill.

Problem number two is the prescription drug plan will be privatized. And what is worse than that is the rest of Medicare could very well be privatized by 2010 under this bill. Insurance is about spreading the risk. When our homeowners policy comes due, sure, we complain; but when you think about the fact that they will replace everything in our house and build us a new house if something happens, it is fairly reasonable, the premium we pay. And why is that? When is the last time you saw a home in your neighborhood burn down or get blown away? It does not happen very often. Insurance is about spreading the risk.

Well, with seniors there is no risk to spread. Seniors require a lot of medicine and a lot of health care to either get well or to stay healthy. That is why we created Medicare 38 years ago.

So why do the Republican leadership and the big drug manufacturers want to privatize the Medicare prescription drug benefit? Well, let me tell you why. You hear about how prescription drugs are less expensive in other countries. It is true. I did a survey about a year ago where I compared the price paid by seniors of the five most commonly used brand-name drugs in my district with seven other countries. And guess what we found: seniors in my district pay on average 110 percent more than seniors in these other countries.

Now, why is that? Because America is the only industrialized Nation in the world where people go without health insurance; 43.6 million of them today, 10 million of them are children and the rest of them, for the most part, are people that are trying to do the right thing and work jobs, but they are working the jobs with no benefits.

In other countries everybody has health care. And in other countries they tell the big drug manufacturers if you want your medicine, your brand in our country, you are going to give us a discount. And they do. And the drug manufacturers and the Republican leadership know good and well that if we have 40 million seniors under one plan in America, that we too will demand those kinds of discounts to help offset the cost of this program.

So they want to privatize the plan and spread seniors out over about 100 plans and have 100 different insurance companies knocking on your door and calling and sending mail to your mother or dad or grandfather or grandmother all trying to sell them, what? Exactly the same plan. Privatization will not work.

The third big problem with this is it is not really a meaningful benefit. Most people who are fortunate enough to have a private health insurance company, and every plan is a little different, but most people who are fortunate to have private health insurance, well, the first $3,500 worth of medicine they pay about $700 out of pocket. Under this Republican prescription drug plan, on the first $3,500 worth of medicine, seniors are going to get stuck with $2,600 of it. All this talk in Washington amounts to $900 worth of help on the first $3,500 worth of medicine.

You see, it is going to have a $250 deductible. And during that time, you have got to pay the monthly premium, which they say may be $35; but they are not real sure what it will be, it could be more. And then after $250 up to $2,000, Medicare is going to pay 80 percent and you pay 20 percent. That sounds pretty good. But on a $100 prescription, once you get to the $250 mark and you are paying $20, what happens when you hit $2,000? All the way up to $3,500 you are back paying the full $100. Medicare pays nothing. But they still bill you monthly for this premium. This is Medicare fraud. It is wrong. This is America, and we can do better than that by our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brother Anselm Allen, of Subiaco, AR, for his exceptional volunteer service and lifetime of dedication as a weather observer. The National Weather Service is presenting Brother Allen with the esteemed John Campanius Holm Award.

Since 1965, Brother Anselm has been collecting weather observations at the New Subiaco Abbey as the official Cooperative Weather Observer at Subiaco, AR. Established in 1897, the New Subiaco Abbey has provided weather data for well over 100 years, and received an award in 1997 for 100 years of service. Boasting the longest tenure of any observer at the New Subiaco Abbey, Brother Anselm was awarded the 40 Year Length of Service Award in August of 2001 by the National Weather Service.

No stranger to awards, Brother Anselm is being presented with the John Campanius Holm Award. This award aims to single out terrific volunteer service as a weather observer and honor extraordinary dedication to the National Weather Service. In total, there

are 11,000 weather observers in the United States, and only 25 people per year receive this high honor.

Brother Anselm's daily weather reports are known for their precision and timeliness and are very much appreciated. Data collected by Brother Anselm is sent on a monthly basis to the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, NC. The information is then published in NOAA's Climatological Data, where it becomes a permanent record of the world's weather.

Additionally, Brother Anselm uses his amateur radio skills to deliver information to the National Weather Service when severe weather threatens the area.

I am so pleased to have the opportunity to properly recognize Brother Anselm Allen before the United States Congress for his outstanding example of dedication and volunteer efforts to the National Weather Service. Please join me in congratulating Brother Anselm on his receipt of the John Campanius Holm Award.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to acknowledge the life and legacy of former Arkansas Governor Sid McMath, a statesman, a leader, a veteran, and a true gentleman who

passed away recently in Arkansas at the age of 91. 1 was honored to have known Governor McMath--a man who, in deed and action, distinguished himself as someone who changed Arkansas for the better.

Governor McMath was a man dedicated to public service. Born in 1912, just outside of Magnolia, Arkansas, in Columbia County, Governor McMath knew he wanted to do great things from an early age. His life of service began in school with student council positions, which led him to be an organizer and the second president of Young Democrats of Arkansas from 1946 to 1947. In 1947, Governor McMath was elected as prosecuting attorney for Garland and Montgomery counties.

Elected as our State's 34th Governor, Governor McMath worked from 1949 to 1953 to improve Arkansas. His leadership left us with an enhanced public education system, a new teaching hospital, improved welfare-assistance programs for elderly Arkansans, dams, and new highways and roads. During a time when African Americans struggled for civil rights, Governor McMath ensured equal facilities and educational opportunities for African Americans in Arkansas. He provided Arkansas' only historically black college, AM & N, now the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, with sufficient resources to become accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

After serving two terms as Governor, Governor McMath built an impressive law practice as one of the State's leading attorneys. For more than five decades, Governor McMath became known as the ``people's lawyer,'' continuing to fight for the causes so important to him and to the people of our great state.

His service went far beyond civilian life, Governor McMath also served in the United States Marine Corps in World War II. He served our Nation eagerly and rose to the rank of Major General before he retired.

Arkansas will be forever grateful that such a visionary leader came along, at the time he did, to lead us into a new era. Those who had the honor to know Governor McMath would describe him as a great orator and one of the most intelligent and genuine people they had ever met; he was truly an asset to our State.

While Governor Sid McMath may no longer be with us, his spirit and his legacy live on by the way he improved the quality of life for all Arkansans. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Betty Dorth Russell McMath, sons Phillip, Sandy and Bruce; and daughters Patricia and Melissa, and all of his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership as ranking member of the House Committee on the Budget, and I am here tonight joining my friend from South Carolina and the gentleman from Texas and others because I am concerned about our country and its future.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am one of 37 members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog coalition. I am as sick and tired of all the partisan bickering as anyone else. I do not look at an idea and look at whether it is just a Democratic idea or Republican idea. I look at it, is it a commonsense idea? If it is, then I support it. But when it comes to the budget and when it comes to the tax cut that was passed earlier this year, the Republican leadership and this administration are dead wrong. Do not take my word for it; look at the numbers.

Under this administration, 3.2 million people have lost their jobs. We now have 9 million people out of work, unable to provide for their families. People have lost $.6 trillion in the stock market, and much of that is retirement savings for so many working families. There are 43.6 million people in America without health insurance. Ten million of them are children. Most of the rest of them work for a living. They are working the jobs with no benefits.

Trade deficits have increased nearly $100 billion. We had a $5.6 trillion projected surplus when President Bush took office. That has become a $3.5 trillion projected deficit over the same period of time. In fact, we have the largest deficit ever in our Nation's history; 374 billion is what they want my colleagues to believe it is, but when we take Social Security out of it and not count Social Security, it is really a $535 billion deficit. Does it matter? Either way we cut it, it is the largest deficit ever in our Nation's history.

The Republicans like to say the Democrats are the ones who spend the money. This is the first time in 50 years that the Republicans have controlled the White House, the House and the Senate; and they have given us the largest deficit ever in our Nation's history.

The first bill I wrote as a Member of Congress was a bill to tell the politicians in Washington to keep their hands off the Social Security trust fund. The Republican leadership refused to give us a hearing or a vote on that bill, and now we know why. Because they were borrowing $374 billion from the Social Security trust fund to help fund this budget, the largest deficit ever in our Nation's history.

Let us think back a moment from 1997 to 2001. We had a balanced budget. We were beginning to pay the debt down. Now we have a $7 trillion debt. This country is spending $1 billion a day, $1 billion a day simply paying interest on the national debt. How much is $1 billion? I put that number to a calculator and get a little E at the end.

I will tell my colleagues how much $1 billion is. We could build 200 brand-new elementary schools every single day in America just for the interest we are paying on the national debt. Better yet, we could provide 1 million senior citizens on Medicare prescription drug coverage for a year just with the interest that we are paying in 1 day on the national debt, $1 billion a day in interest payments on this $7 trillion debt. We are not talking about principal payment; we are talking simply interest payments.

What are we seeing from this administration? We are seeing cuts in education. It was President Bush who said his top priority was education reform in this No Child Left Behind business, and he is the one who told us how much it would take to implement this program. My colleagues know how it works in this body. If it had been my program and he was cutting it, that makes sense. We are talking about he cut his own program. Arkansas's cut, $87 million for next year. What does that say about our commitment to our children and their future?

Veterans benefits are being cut left and right. What kind of message are we sending to the men and women in uniform serving us today in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world when we are cutting the benefits for the veterans who came and served before them?

These may be Republican priorities, but they are not American priorities. These may be Republican values, but these are not America's values. I believe it is time for us to get our fiscal house back in order, to restore common sense and fiscal discipline to our Nation's government.

Finally, let me say that I raise these issues because I believe our priorities and values should be centered around our children ensuring they get the very best education possible, Head Start, after-school programs, providing our veterans with the help that they so desperately need. We need to be investing in infrastructure. That is how President Roosevelt got us out of the Depression, with the WPA program. I drove over bridges yesterday that were built as part of the WPA program. We are there folks. We are there. All 50 States collectively are faced with the largest shortfall they have seen since the Great Depression. We should be investing in our infrastructure, and we need to be investing in jobs.

I raise these issues because my grandparents left this country better off than they found it for my parents, and my parents left this country better off than they found it for our generation, and I think we have got a duty and an obligation to leave this country a little better off than we found it for our children and grandchildren.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness month, and as this month comes to an end, it is important for us to reflect upon the progress we have made toward defeating this illness.

An increased awareness of the steps necessary to defeat breast cancer, including mammography screenings, has led to early detection and higher survival rates.

However, we still have a long way to go. This year nearly 40,000 women will die of breast cancer, and over 211,000 new cases will be diagnosed.

Unfortunately, many of these cases will be diagnosed, and deaths will occur, in communities where access to advanced medicine is limited.

Congress's commitment to increasing the funding for cancer prevention and early detection is helping us battle this disease. Today we can be proud of the advancements we have made. But we must continue our commitment to defeating breast cancer by raising the public's awareness, expanding health care screenings to include all women, and continuing to fund the research necessary to fight this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an exceptional artist from Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District, Ms. Dortha Scott of Mount Ida. Out of more than 9,300 entries, Ms. Scott's outstanding sketch has been selected to be used by the U.S. Mint for the Arkansas Quarter. The U.S. Mint will produce the Quarter for 10 weeks, and between 650-750 million quarters will be put into circulation across the United States.

Our Quarter incorporates several elements that truly reflect Arkansas. This is a coin that helps everyone in our nation understand why Arkansas is so proudly called ``The Natural State.'' The background of the Quarter represents the abundance of natural resources that our state encompasses. Elements of the Quarter, including a mallard duck soaring above the water with trees in the background, symbolizes Arkansas's reputation as one of the most popular states in the country for hunting and fishing, and as a state with a high-abundance of forest land. The rice on the left side of the Quarter signifies the important role rice and other agricultural crops play in Arkansas's economy, as agriculture has historically been a way of life for so many working families. Arkansas leads the country in rice production.

The centerpiece of the Quarter is a diamond, representing the Crater of Diamonds State Park near Murfreesboro. The Crater of Diamonds State Park is not only home to the largest diamond ever to be unearthed in the United States, but is also the eighth largest diamond deposit in the world, and the only diamond mine in the world where the public can search for diamonds. The Crater of Diamonds State Park is a leading source for Arkansas pride and tourism.

I am honored that the Arkansas Quarter is one that truly showcases the state and all it has to offer. I hope that everyone will take time to reflect upon Arkansas's treasures and history, and join us in celebrating our new state coin. I am so pleased to have the opportunity to properly recognize Ms. Dortha Scott before the United States Congress for her beautiful artwork that truly depicts our great state, which will be viewed by millions of Americans as they earn and spend the Arkansas Quarter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate an outstanding Arkansan, and native of the Fourth Congressional District, whose dedication to historic preservation and to our National Park system is beyond extraordinary.

Parker Westbrook is a recipient of the Gold Star Award, which is one of the most prestigious awards the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation bestows to its members.

I am also here to honor Mr. Westbrook for his active involvement as a member of the advisory board for the National Park System.

Through his selfless, unyielding service to both organizations, Parker played a major role in protecting our Nation's resources, and preserving our precious national landmarks.

For the past 8 years, Parker has spent countless hours serving on both of these prestigious boards. His dedication went well beyond mere membership; he never missed a meeting for either organization.

Throughout his life, Parker has sought to better his community and his country by preserving our country's heritage for future generations. He is a role model to all Americans who strive for exceptional public service. I congratulate him on his recent accomplishment, and I wish him the best in what I know will be many more years of selfless service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Johnny Cash, one of our most well known singer/songwriters who was born in a little-known town in my district named Kingsland.

Kingsland, Arkansas is a little town of 449 residents that lies just west of the Mississippi Delta, the fertile ground out of which grows our nation's finest food and fiber. Out of this land also grows much hardship--it is sparsely populated by farmers whose fortune is subject to the whims of nature. It gave birth to the blues, and to Johnny Cash.

Cash was born in the wake of the Great Depression, the fourth of five children in a cotton farming family. He picked cotton with his hands, sang hymns at the Central Baptist Church, and sought higher ground at Pine Bluff when the great flood of 1937 sent the Mississippi's waters spilling into his family's cotton fields in Dyess, covering them with the black Mississippi mud that the next year produced the best cotton crop they'd ever seen--hardship and glory wrapped up in a busted levee that soaked his livelihood and sealed his fate as the champion of the downtrodden.

Johnny Cash's music transcended genres and generations to touch us all with stories of struggle--sometimes ending in triumph, but usually ending in trouble. His adventurous ballads and lamenting dirges could bring us down to the darkest depths of life at the same time his spirituals lifted us up to heaven.

He was bold. He was bad. He was brave. He made his peace with man and with God through his songs. He sang of outlaws and heroes, cowboys and killers, soldiers and lovers, and even a boy named Sue. He was country, folk, and rock and roll. Johnny Cash didn't sing to simply earn a living, he sang because he had much to tell.

From his life we learn to face adversity with wit and integrity, to fight back when pushed down, to hold duty and honor sacred, and to love and forgive. We lost one of our national treasures this month, but the legacy and the legend of the Man in Black will live on in the gift he gave us all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for offering up this motion to instruct conferees on the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that, as the owner of a small-town family pharmacy, one of the things that I see way too often is seniors who walk through the doors of our pharmacy who cannot afford their medicine or who cannot afford to take it properly.

I live in a small town, a town that lost its hospital back in 1995. Our folks now go 16 miles down the road to the hospital in Hope, Arkansas. Living in a small town, I see so many seniors that end up 16 miles down the road in the hospital running up a $25,000 or $50,000 Medicare bill, or requiring $250,000 worth of kidney dialysis, or having a $50,000 leg amputation, simply because they cannot afford their medicine or cannot afford to take it properly. This is America, and we can do better than that by our seniors, America's greatest generation.

There has been a lot of talk in Washington about trying to help our seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, but that is all we have seen and that is all we have gotten, has been a lot of talk.

When I came to Congress in 2001, I thought if there was one issue that would not be partisan, that would not divide us, but, rather, would be a senior issue, this is not about Democrats or Republicans, or at least it ought not be, it ought to be about our seniors, and I thought if there was one issue that could bring us together, it would be to do right by our seniors. But, instead, what we have had offered up by the Republican leadership is a false hope and a false promise, nothing more than Medicare fraud for our seniors.

There are several problems with this so-called Medicare prescription drug bill. Number one, the fund that they want to cut funding for to fund the prescription drug coverage for our seniors, the Republicans want to cut funding to rural hospitals to the tune of $12 billion. We have lost 470 rural hospitals in America in the last 25 years. As I mentioned earlier, we lost the hospital in my hometown of Prescott, Arkansas, in 1995, and I can tell you that is something I do not wish on anyone. It is wrong to try and fund this Medicare prescription drug benefit by shutting down rural hospitals.

Another problem with the bill is this bill is supposed to be about helping our seniors. The problem is, it is not a seniors' bill, it is a bill that has been written by the big drug manufacturers.

The drug manufacturers have more lobbyists in Washington, D.C., than we have Members of Congress in the House and Senate combined, and their fingerprints are all over this bill. The Republican leadership had the nerve to put language in this bill that says that the Federal Government shall be prohibited from negotiating with the big drug manufacturers to bring down the high cost of medicine. That is in the bill.

Another problem with the bill is privatizing the Medicare prescription drug benefit. There is a very good reason why they want to do this. You hear about how drugs are cheaper in other countries. They are. It is because America is the only industrialized nation in the world where people go without health insurance. That does not happen anywhere else in the industrialized world.

There 41 million people in America without health insurance today; 8.5 million are children. Who are the rest of them? It is not the folks that do not want to work. If you do not want to work, you get on welfare and you get Medicaid.

We are talking about the people that are trying to do right and stay off welfare, that are working the jobs with no benefits. But in other countries that does not happen. In other countries the government says to the big drug companies, you give us a discount if you want your drug in our country, and they do.

I did a survey, Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, where I compared the price paid by seniors in my Congressional District in Arkansas on the five most commonly used brand name drugs with the price paid by seniors in seven other countries. Guess what? Seniors in my district in Arkansas pay, on average, 110 percent more than seniors pay in these seven other countries.

So the drug manufacturers want to privatize this, because they know if we have 40 million seniors under one plan, we, too, will demand these kinds of discounts and rebates to help offset the costs of the program. So they want to privatize it and have 100 different insurance companies knocking on your momma's door, calling her on the phone, sending her mail, all trying to sell her exactly the same policy.

Finally, the biggest problem with the bill is the benefit itself. There is all this talk in Washington about helping our seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs. What does the plan do?

Well, from day one you have got to pay at least a $35 monthly premium, although no one can tell us exactly how much it will be. Then you will have a $250 deductible. Then from $250 to $2,000, Medicare will kick in at 80 percent of the cost of its medicine. That part sounds pretty good. But when you get to $2,000, you have got to continue to pay the $35 monthly premium. But, guess what? The senior is back being forced to foot the entire bill from $2,000 up to $3,500. Pay the premium, but get no help.

If seniors cannot afford the first $2,000 worth of medicine, tell me, how in the world they are going to afford the next $1,500?

When you do the math on this, here is what it comes out to. All this talk boils down to this. On the first $3,500 worth of medicine that seniors need each year, Medicare is going to help them with $900 of it. Seniors are still going to get stuck trying to pay $2,600 of the first $3,500 worth of medicine. When you take the formula, and you almost need a CPA to figure it out, and you factor in the premium, that is what it amounts to.

Tell me this, $900 worth of help on a $3,500 drug bill, I do not know about where you come from, but I can tell you, where I come from, that is not going to help my struggling seniors to choose between their medicine and their groceries and their rent and their light bill.

I am not going to rest until seniors can walk into the pharmacy of their choice, pull out their Medicare card and be treated like they are when they go to the doctor and to the hospital. I will continue to fight, and that is exactly what we are doing in this motion to instruct conferees on the Medicare prescription drug bill. I am going to continue to fight until we get a plan that is voluntary, but guaranteed, and made available to all seniors who have no help today, while protecting those seniors who have help. I want to make sure that this bill that passes this Congress will not shut down another rural hospital.