Marion Berry

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one of the interesting things is that analysts have looked at the situation and they indicate that our people would use a lot more medicine if they could afford it, and that it actually would not damage the pharmaceutical companies' profits at all, that they would continue to be very successful. And we want them to be successful, but it all comes down to money. I think it is such an irresponsible thing to expect our seniors and to expect other Americans that have to take medicine to continue to pay two and three times as much for their medicine as anybody else in the world. I happened to be in Cuba about this time last year. We were there to meet with the ministers of the Cuban government to talk about them buying food from us, and also talk about buying our medicine. As we were beginning to conclude these talks, we said to them, ``You have said you want to buy our food, and we are pleased about that. We certainly want to sell it to you. Our farmers need the business. Our markets are in bad shape and we need your help, and you need our food. But you had not talked about medicine. Do you not want to buy our medicine?'' And they laughed a very cynical laugh and looked across the table at our delegation. They said, ``We can buy your medicine anyplace in the world cheaper than we can go buy it from you. We can buy it in Canada, Mexico, Panama, Great Britain, Argentina; just pick a place, we can buy it for one-third of what you are paying for it.'' Then they looked me right in the eye and they said, ``Why do you do that to your own people?'' I do not believe I have ever felt more inadequate than I did at that moment. I did not have an answer for them. The best answer that I could give them is, ``We are trying to change it.'' We are going to keep trying until we get it done, because it is just a matter of basic fairness.

Mr. BERRY. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I am afraid it is going to be that buckeye in that rainbow stew I referred to earlier. As best I am able to determine what the plan by the party across the aisle and by the administration currently is, it is to force our seniors into a managed care plan. And the only way they will be able to get a prescription drug benefit is to accept this managed care plan as a substitute for Medicare. It will have the same result that the gentleman just referred to; it will be an insurance company effort that the insurance companies will pull out of, ask continuously for more money, and we will be spending our Federal dollars for insurance companies rather than for health care for our seniors.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me, and thank him also for his leadership in this matter and all of the hard work that he has put into the budgets over the years. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater need in America that is unfulfilled than prescription drugs for our seniors. The Blue Dog budget provides $92 billion over 5 years for real, defined, voluntary prescription drug benefits for Medicare. The Republican budget, however, over 10 years provides $153 billion for an undefined prescription drug plan that is no more than pie in the sky, and they will take that money out of the Medicare Trust Fund to do it. This is not keeping the Medicare Trust Fund in a lockbox, as everyone loves to talk about. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Blue Dog budget also provides for more money for our hospitals, who continue to struggle. We get letters and calls every day about the difficult time our hospitals are having, particularly in rural areas. So we have dealt honestly and fairly with these issues. We deal with health care for our seniors in an appropriate way in this budget. I am very proud to support the Blue Dog budget, and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have to say if we get any more bipartisan than we are here today, it is going to be an absolute miracle. We will have to remove the center aisle. We favor tax cuts, but we do not favor a bigger debt. We are not in favor of running up the debt another $5.7 trillion. We are not in favor of our children having to pay off this debt. We are not in favor of not having a budget, not having a spending plan that will protect our children and protect Social Security and Medicare like both parties have over and over promised to do; provide an education for our children; do a better job for our national defense; take care of our farmers and our agricultural industry in this country and provide better infrastructure. We all know we have to do that to be a successful Nation, and at the same time we can have these tax cuts but we need to have a budget first. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote whereby the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Thomas

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

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I want to thank him and the gentleman from Mississippi and all the other Blue Dogs for their leadership in this matter. I think it is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Blue Dogs are in favor of cutting taxes but we are not in favor of buying lottery tickets with our children's future. We think we should have a budget first. If you took the financial condition of this country, as the gentleman from Mississippi just so adequately pointed out, and a financial plan that we have today, that this country has to a banker, any banker in the United States or anyplace else where there is a responsible banker, they would just throw you out of their office. They would either declare you crazy or tell you to get out because they have got better things to do. Throughout the campaign, in the State of the Union, for the last year, this House has been putting the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds in a lockbox. Ever since I have been here, we have been talking about that. We have been talking about paying off the debt. We have promised the American people that we are going to protect our children, we are going to protect Social Security, we are going to protect Medicare, we are going to provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, we are going to provide a good education for our children, we are going to provide for a good national defense, we are going to have a solid agriculture that has a good safety net. And we are going to have these lockboxes. Over and over we talk about the lockboxes and over and over we vote to put this money in the lockboxes. And now we find out that it does not even exist. Yet we are going to vote tomorrow without even having a plan as to how we are going to accomplish these things. As the gentleman from Mississippi just so adequately pointed out, the surplus is projected just like we project the weather. The debt is real. It really exists. We can count it to the penny. I am proud to be a Blue Dog. There are only 33 of us. But we stand strong and we stand tough against making bad fiscal decisions and irresponsible fiscal decisions. I think we all want to have as large a tax cut as we possibly can afford. But none of us want to buy lottery tickets with our children's future. In the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the last thing that is there before the men signed it, and they all knew they were putting their lives on the line when they signed it, they said that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the future of this country and to that declaration. I would challenge the Members of this Congress today to stand strong as those men did and do the right thing for the children of this country and the future of this country.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me, and I appreciate his leadership ever since I has been in the Congress on these issues, and everything that he has done. As everyone knows, last year's Presidential race was the closest in history. The Senate is evenly divided, the House is very closely divided. I do not believe that the close elections give a mandate to gridlock. The American people expect us to get something done, and they should. Health issues are certainly among the most hotly debated issues in the campaign. Both sides promised to advance a Patients' Bill of Rights and Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. I see no obstruction or barrier that is so great that Congress and the new President should not be able to work out important ideological differences that exist, and reach an agreement soon. Last week I was happy to join with others in introducing a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights legislation that will ensure that every American with private health insurance has basic guaranteed protection. While some HMOs behave responsibly, the legislation is desperately needed to protect the vulnerable from insurance bureaucrats who place profits above all else. I encourage President Bush to come to the table and work with us to ensure a meaningful legislative package is enacted this year. For the sake of thousands of patients who are inappropriately denied health care daily, time is of the essence. I want to also speak just a minute about prescription drugs. No single issue places a greater toll on our senior citizens than the outrageously high prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for prescription medicine. It is absolutely time that we do something about it. Drug spending over recent years has been climbing steadily at 15 to 20 percent a year. According to a study released last year by Families U.S.A., from January of 1994 to January 2000, the prices of prescription drugs most frequently used by older Americans rose an average of 30.5 percent. This increase was twice the rate of inflation. In order to meet the needs of America's seniors, Congress should take immediate action to create a Medicare drug benefit and reform the pharmaceutical marketplace to be sure that it is fair to all Americans and all people. It only makes sense that the government should use the purchasing power of 40 million Americans on Medicare to win prescription drug discounts and not break the bank in creating a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I am encouraged that President Bush sent a prescription drug plan to Congress last week. However, I am disappointed that after an election in which the prescription drug issue was front and center, that the White House chose to unveil it in such a low-profile manner. I agree with the concerns raised by members of both parties that instead of putting an emphasis on block grants to States that only attempt to help low-income seniors, a much more comprehensive approach should be taken that gives all seniors the opportunity to receive a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I look forward to working with members of both parties and the new administration to put a serious effort into seeing that meaningful HMO reform and Medicare prescription drug benefit is enacted in time to help all Americans who desperately need that help today. I have been in this people's House now for a little over 4 years. We had these same problems when I came here. It is very distressing to think that we yet allow this to go on when it is a very simple thing to stop it and to help our seniors, and to be sure that people do not get mistreated by insurance companies that are willing to put their health and safety second behind profits.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, and I thank him also for his leadership and the leadership of our other colleagues who have joined us here this evening, the distinguished gentlemen from Texas and Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, we have heard much rhetoric, election-year rhetoric this evening, and for the last few weeks especially. There is plenty of effort to say, let us blame someone. I have only been here almost 4 years, and it has been interesting to listen to this rhetoric, and interestingly enough, it is always the Democrats that cause the problem. Even when we were not in the White House, it was the Democrats. When we are not in charge of the Congress, it is the Democrats. It does not make any difference, even when we are not in the majority and when we are not in the White House, we still cause the problem. I find that a bit interesting. The fact is, the question about how much is enough is answered by the majority party. That is the Republicans. Just a few weeks ago they raised the budget limits, the budget caps, one more time. I did not vote for it, I do not think anyone in this room voted for it, but they raised it. They are in the majority. That is their job. As they asked that question, I also wonder, how much is enough, when they tried to give $11.5 to the insurance companies last week that there is absolutely no justification for. How much is enough? Maybe we should give these insurance companies, they think maybe $20 billion. How much is enough? That is enough money to provide a real nice prescription drug benefit for our seniors for a year. They tried to give $15 billion to the bond arbitrage folks that do that job, instead of letting it go to the schools, like we had intended. How much is enough? How much money do we just give away when there is absolutely no indication that there is a need for that money? So I wonder myself how much is enough. I think we have had enough. I think it is time for this Congress to face up to its obligations. I can tell the gentleman this for absolute certainty: In the district that I am fortunate to represent, and I was there this morning, I met with more senior citizens that still do not have a prescription drug benefit with their Medicare policy. They are still paying three times as much for their medicine as any other country in the world, and it is not right. It is not fair. It does not make any difference whether it is the Democrats or Republicans. It does not make any difference about how much is enough. We know that that is not fair. It is not right, and it is time we do something with it about it. This Congress is not here tonight dealing with that like they should be. We are listening to all of these silly questions. We are listening to this rhetoric, and it is time that this Congress dealt with that. Our Republican colleagues just a few minutes ago they said we passed a prescription drug benefit; that is just simply not true. They did not pass one. They voted on one in this House. They did not make it into law. They never intended to. They did not help those seniors I just talked about. They still have the problem. We still have seniors in the district that I represent that do not know whether or not tonight they are going to have something to eat because they had to buy their medicines. That is not right. It is not right for our colleagues across the aisle to try to cloud the issue. We had their Presidential candidate a few weeks ago in a debate. He loved to use the word fuzzy numbers. He kept talking about fuzzy numbers. Well, there is nothing fuzzy about a senior citizen that does not have the money to buy the medicine and buy their food. There is nothing fuzzy about that. There is nothing cute about it. There is nothing funny about it, and it is a shame that the Republicans have chosen to just ignore this issue, let it go on and on and hope it will go away somewhere. We have real people that feel real pain, and it is not right. These are the people that worked hard, played by the rules, and we had assured them we were going to give them health care and Social Security when they retire and things will be all right if you do this. It is not right to let that continue to happen. Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues another thing for certain, we do not have a patients' bill of rights. They have done the same thing. We have people in the district that I represent tonight that do not know whether or not the insurance is going to pay for their health care or not, because some clerk said we can make more money for the company if we do not pay for it. The doctor and the patient still cannot make that decision, and it is not right. It is time that we do something about it. My distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from West Texas (Mr. Stenholm), mentioned earlier this evening the one thing we absolutely cannot do is allow this Congress to end until we deal with the Medicare reimbursement schedules for our hospitals, nursing homes and our home health care providers and some of our other Medicare providers. We are about to tear and destroy the very fabric of rural health care in this country if we do not do something about this, and we should do it in the morning. We should come back to this floor and take care of that problem. It is not right. I know for certain that those things have not been dealt with appropriately by this Congress. It does not make any difference whether it is Republicans or Democrats. We have real people feeling real pain and doing without the necessities of life and the richest country that has ever been in the history of the world and we have people over here asking silly questions like how much is enough.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, well, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) makes a strong point and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). The fact remains that we have not gotten the job done for the American people on health care. One of the proudest moments that I have there in this House was the day that we passed, in a bipartisan way, a strong bipartisan way, a meaningful, effective Patients' Bill of Rights. Republicans and Democrats worked together to get the job done. We have proven over and over again in this body that, when we work together, good things happen. Very seldom does a really meaningful piece of legislation ever go through this House that is not bipartisan. Yet, we continue this partisan bickering. The American people do not care about this. They want us to get the job done, and it is time for us to do that. I would hope that, when we do come back, whether it be this year or in the 107th Congress, that we will, in a bipartisan way, address these things that are so desperately needed in this country, like a Patients' Bill of Rights, and do it in a bipartisan way. I have never on issues pertaining to health care and the budget had any effort whatsoever made from the other side to even listen to our ideas, much less accept them, work together and try to work out a solution. I think it would be a wonderful thing if we would do that in a bipartisan way and solve some of these problems. We have got to solve the problem of our reimbursements for our hospitals, nursing homes, home health care providers. We know that. The distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has said earlier we cannot allow our rural hospitals to be destroyed because we did not deal with this problem. We have got to have prescription medicine for our seniors, and in a meaningful way, not in some clever gimmick that someone has thought up. We can do this in a bipartisan way. I hope we come back after this time that we have spent here adjourns, and we go home, that we come back with a new resolve to get the job done in a bipartisan way. Certainly I think, to answer that question once again, how much is enough, certainly this is enough, and it is time for us to stop this, get the job done, get our work done, do what the American people sent us here to do, and not continue this partisan bickering that we get blamed for and justifiably so. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, and I am proud to recognize Elmer A. Ferguson in the Congress for his invaluable contributions and service to our nation. Elmer Ferguson distinguished himself through his devotion to his family, friends, and community. He was born in DeWitt, Arkansas on September 17th, 1910, the son of a local farmer. His family instilled in him the value of an education, and he and his sister enrolled at Arkansas Tech University in Russellville in 1930, but he was able to remain only for one year because of financial difficulties. Elmer never forgot his hardship, and he would later do everything he could to make sure that deserving students could go to college. Of course, Elmer made the most of his opportunities, despite his initial challenges. After returning from Russellville, he worked his way from a $15 a week job at a DeWitt grocery store to being the manager there. Eventually he became a successful grocery store owner, an accomplished farmer, and the well-respected board chairman of the DeWitt Bank and Trust Co., a position he held until he died last week. Elmer would probably count his family as his greatest success, however. After marrying Gladys Guthrie in 1934, he was blessed with three daughters, seven grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren. As mentioned earlier, Elmer always remembered his humble beginnings, and used his success to help others have the opportunities he missed. In 1987, he established the Elmer Ferguson and Gladys Ferguson Charitable Trust, which funded four-year college scholarships for DeWitt students. Elmer also donated a scholarship to the University of Mississippi. Elmer's generosity and empathy had no limit. He and Gladys gave $250,000 to the Children's Miracle Network Telethon, and underwrote the creation of the Neuroscience Unit at Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock, which is named for them. Just eight years ago, both were also named to the honorary board of patrons by the Baptist Medical System Foundation in recognition of their support to that organization. Sadly, Elmer Ferguson passed away on Friday, about a month after Gladys died. They were great friends of mine, and I will miss them as much as their family, friends, and the great community of those who ever knew them. On behalf of the Congress, I extend my deepest sympathies to their family, even as I encourage them to join me in celebrating their extraordinary lives.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate what the gentleman from Texas has already said, and certainly part of this disagreement is about the immigrants; but the major disagreement we have is that the Republicans have chosen to raise their own budget caps and spend that money by giving it as a wonderful trick or treat present to the HMOs. They have chosen to deny the relief that our hospitals and nursing homes need. They have chosen to deny prescription drug benefits for our seniors. They have chosen to deny estate tax and marriage tax relief to our citizens. These people cannot wait. This money should not go to the insurance companies, it should not be wasted by giving it to the HMOs. It should be used to provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, to keep our hospitals and nursing homes in business, to provide the services we need, to provide estate tax and marriage tax relief to our citizens. We should not have to wait another 1 year or 2 years or 4 years to see this benefit granted to the American people. It is time for this Congress to do its work that we should have done a long time ago.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my great friend; and I want to commend him for his leadership on health care matters in this Congress and in the time that he has been here. It is nice to be here with my Democratic colleagues today that have all worked so hard to try to improve the health care system in this country. One of the previous speakers on the Republican side earlier today said it is time for a reality check. I could not agree more. Let us check the reality of the situation we are dealing with today. We are at the end of the session. We are here on a Saturday afternoon and would be proud to be here if we were just taking up the legitimate business of the American people. We have no patient's bill of rights. We have no prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens. That is the reality. We have not made provisions for more reimbursements for our hospitals to keep them in business. They are going broke every day. That is the reality. We have made no provisions to keep our home health care providers in business. That is the reality. Nor to keep our ambulance services in business. That is the reality. We have not made provisions for school bonds, smaller classrooms, after-school classes, teacher training, or any of the education programs that our children so desperately need. That is reality. Let us talk about what we have done. We passed a patient's bill of rights in a bipartisan way in this House, and the leadership in the House and the Senate killed it in the Senate and in conference in a disgusting way. They should be ashamed of themselves. They raised, and the Democrats voted against it, I voted against it, but the Republicans raised their own budget. They raised their own spending caps just a few days ago so that they could give an $11.5 billion Christmas present to the HMOs, not to correct these problems I just talked about, not to help our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, not to provide a patient's bill of rights, not to help our hospitals or our health care providers, but to give a Christmas present, granted it would be early, but it would be a nice Christmas present to the insurance companies that have poured money, in an unprecedented way, into their campaigns. That is reality. Governor Bush stands before the American people and proclaims his great concern for our senior citizens not having prescription medicines. He claims that he almost single-handedly passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas, which we all know is not right. And he also proclaims that he has this great ability to work in a bipartisan way. I would suggest to you today, the Democrats are here. We are on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, and we are ready to go. We are ready to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. We are ready to pass a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We are ready to pass increased Medicare reimbursements to keep our hospitals and nursing homes and all of our other health care providers in business, not to enrich them, just keep them in business so that our seniors and our citizens in this country have decent health care in the greatest Nation that has ever been. And he claims to have this great bipartisan ability. He will not even need bipartisan ability. We are ready to go. The Democrats are here. We are ready to do business. He has got to work on the Republicans. I would suggest, maybe he should call the Speaker Hastert. Maybe he should call the majority leader in the Senate and tell them, ``I am for this.'' That is what he says. He says, I want to help America's seniors. I want to be sure every American that buys health insurance has the opportunity to make their own health care decisions along with their health care professionals. That is what he says. Maybe he should give the majority leader in the House a call. Maybe he should call the whip on the Republican side and say, ``I'm ready to go. Let's just go ahead and do this this fall. It will be great for the campaign. We can say we don't even have to get elected. We have already gotten it done.'' But the reality is they only talk about it. This is the greatest attempt to deceive a Nation that has ever been. The pharmaceutical manufacturers in this country have poured tens of millions of dollars into this campaign in an attempt to deceive the American people. Any time the American people see this tag line, Citizens for Better Medicare, look out. What they mean is citizens for more profit for the pharmaceutical industry, and we are supporting this candidate because we think they will support us when the time comes, and we think they will protect our outrageous profits at the expense of the wonderful senior citizens in this country. And it has already been mentioned, they are the greatest generation. It is unbelievable that we are here today and have been fighting this battle for over 2 years. Yet even though we are here on Saturday afternoon, the Democrats virtually alone in their effort to move these issues forward, and it still has not happened. The President is ready to do these; he knows it is the right thing to do. The Republicans claim they are. It is absolutely amazing that we have not been able to get this done. That is the reality check. I thank the gentleman from Texas once again for his leadership in this matter.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, knowing that the gentlewoman is from Texas, I would be interested to know what her experience with the Governor has been in Texas on a patients' bill of rights.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and appreciate the leadership he has provided on this matter over the time that I have been in the House of Representatives. I appreciate our distinguished colleagues, especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), for the great job that she has done and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). They have been working on these issues all the time we have been in the House, and I appreciate them very much. The American public is outraged that we have not done anything in the 106th Congress on health care. Here we are 25 days into October, should have already finished the Congress' business and gone home. Yet we are here today because the Republican leadership has refused to deal even with the basic appropriations matters. We have not passed a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We have not passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. We have, as the gentlewoman from Texas just referred to, hospitals and nursing homes closing almost daily now because of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that needs to be repaired. Our seniors that do not have medicine cannot wait until the 107th Congress. What are we expecting them to do? They cannot wait when they do not have medicine and do not have the money to buy it. Our citizens that do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights, and they are not getting the health care they need from their insurance companies, they cannot wait. Our nursing homes and hospitals and providers, particularly in rural America, cannot wait. It is time that we did something. The Republican leadership in this Congress should do something tomorrow to rectify this situation. Mr. Speaker, I have to say it reminds me of the story of two men in the community where I grew up. One of them was named Dude and the other one's name was Possum. Now Possum could not see very well and he was getting on up in years and needed to go to Little Rock to the doctor about a hundred miles away, and Dude decided he would take him. So they got in the car and started to Little Rock, and they got to Little Rock and it was the first stop light that they encountered after traveling 100 miles and Dude came up to the stop light and slammed on his brakes. He sat there and waited until the light changed and then just floor- boarded the automobile and roared off to the next stop light. When he came to it and it was red, he slammed on his brakes again. After doing that three or four times, Possum said, ``Dude, what in the world are you doing?'' And he said, ``I don't understand this.'' And Dude said, ``You know, an ignorant so-and-so irritates me. Can't you see I'm fighting the traffic?'' That is what the Republicans have been doing here for 2 years, is fighting the traffic. They are not getting anything done. They are slamming on their brakes, and they are stomping the accelerator. They are ripping and roaring and tearing around and declaring all of this great concern about America's health care, and the fact is they have not done anything and do not intend to. It has been interesting to listen to Governor Bush talking about working in a bipartisan way. We are certainly willing to work with him. He better bring some new Republicans with him if he is going to get any cooperation. The Democrats are already there ready to pass a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from Texas makes a very good point. It is time that the Republican leadership in the Congress realizes what the American people want and do something about it. It is past time. Our seniors cannot afford to wait another day for prescription drug coverage, for our hospitals to get the money that they need, and for a Patients' Bill of Rights to be passed so that we have the ability for our doctors and patients to make the health care decisions that they are involved in; so that we can hold the insurance companies accountable in the event that they do cause some serious damage or injury to our loved ones. It is unbelievable to me that one more Congress has already just about expired and nothing has happened. I continue to be amazed at this rhetoric that the Republicans put out every day: oh, we are for Patients' Bill of Rights. We are for prescription drug benefits for our senior citizens. We are for that 100 percent. The fact is they have been in control of this Congress since 1995 and have done absolutely nothing to move these issues forward. As the gentleman from New Jersey explained a few minutes ago, we have done discharge petitions. We have done everything that we have; every tool that we have available to us has been used by the Democrats to try to get prescription drug coverage and a Patients' Bill of Rights and to change the Balanced Budget Act so that our health care providers, particularly in rural America, can stay in business, and yet nothing has happened. This is an abomination for this Congress to be this close to adjournment and still nothing has happened. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey again. One of the things that I wonder about is our Republican leadership here, as I have said, they have refused to pass a patients' bill of rights and a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and I wonder how they are going to face these seniors and say, well, wait 4 more years. How are they going to face these seniors that are thrown into terrible situations and say, well, we did not do it, but we are going to. We are with you. We are going to do it some day. How are they going to face a little boy that has lost his limbs?

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our distinguished ranking member, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our distinguished chairman, not only for their leadership in this matter but all other matters that come before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the great job that they do. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), as well as the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for the purpose of a colloquy. I also rise to ask for the gentleman's consideration in including the authorization language in this legislation to benefit the lower Mississippi valley region. As the gentleman may know, I have introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2911, that would create the Delta Regional Authority, an economic development tool similar to the Appalachian Regional Authority. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call the Arkansas portion of the Delta my home, but the Delta region consistently ranks as one of the poorest and most underdeveloped areas in the country. This legislation would provide funds and resources specifically to this region. Due to the efforts of the representatives of this region, we have been fortunate to receive $20 million in energy and water development appropriations. We simply wish to include the necessary authorization language in this bill so we may begin to provide substantial assistance to the Delta region. As the bill before the House today, WRDA 2000, continues through the legislative process, I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will consider including the authorizing language for the Delta Regional Authority in this bill.

Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, and I am proud to recognize Priscilla A. Hillgren in the Congress for her invaluable contributions and service to our nation. Priscilla Hillgren distinguished herself through her devotion to her family, friends, and community. She was born in Beresford, South Dakota on June 26th, 1904, the daughter of a Lutheran minister. Her family instilled in her the value of an education, and she and her sisters attended college, which she interrupted twice to teach in a country school. One of the happiest days of her life surely must have been June 26th, 1929, when she married Ralph O. Hillgren, who was city editor of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Many more happy days followed, thanks to the births of her son John, her daughters Annette Bray and Sonja Hillgren Hill, two grandchildren, five great- grandchildren, three step grandchildren, and three step great- grandchildren. Priscilla Hillgren is probably best-known for her work with mentally handicapped children at three Sioux Falls private schools from 1958 to 1972. Her generosity and hard work touched many families in that area, and her legacy will inspire those who continue to provide these important services. She also was active in the American Association of University Women, with membership in two AAUW book groups, and was honored by AAUW as a Named Gift Recipient in 1977. Moreover, Priscilla was president of the Augustana College Auxiliary, and a member of the Civic Fine Arts Center and the American Legion Auxiliary, among other organizations. Sadly, Priscilla Hillgren passed away last month. Her congregation at the First Lutheran Church, where she was a Sunday School teacher for 26 years, will miss her greatly, as will her family and friends. I am among this group, and on behalf of the Congress I extend my deepest sympathies to her family, even as I encourage them to join me in celebrating her extraordinary life.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great Arkansas institution, and I am proud to recognize the Jonesboro Sun in the Congress for its invaluable contributions and service to our nation. Family-owned, independent newspapers are part of a great, albeit vanishing, tradition that goes back to our nation's earliest days. According to one recent study, independents' share of the daily newspaper circulation dropped from 90 percent in 1990 to 14 percent in 1998. Last year, it was projected that half of America's family-owned dailies--which number less than 300--will be sold within the next five years. On the morning of Saturday, September 2nd, Northeast Arkansas learned that the Troutt family, owners of the Jonesboro Sun for 99 of its 117 years, decided to sell the newspaper to the Paxton Media Group of Paducah, Kentucky. The Sun is the regional newspaper serving a dozen counties in the First Congressional District of Arkansas. The Jonesboro Sun is a mainstream newspaper that has always emphasized fair and thorough coverage of the day-to-day news that affects the lives of eastern Arkansas residents. A great newspaper should always serve as the conscience of the area and the readers it serves. The Sun has played that vital role in the lives of many of our citizens. The Sun is a great newspaper, not an entertainment-driven publication that feeds on this nation's cult of celebrity. The Troutt family operated the Sun more as a legacy than a business. It has been a profitable business, but also an understated, integral part of the community. ``Independent'' means many things to many people. The dictionary definition is ``free from the control of others,'' but that is just part of its meaning when applied to an independent newspaper like the Jonesboro Sun. In the first place, it is free from the control of a distant corporate headquarters when it comes to a sensitive or controversial story that an influential person might seek to suppress. The Sun's corporate headquarters has been contiguous to the newsroom, where management and ownership is only a few steps away to make sure the facts are presented fairly. Independent also means freedom from the influence of advertisers. An independent paper can choose to publish or not publish an article based on an objective evaluation of its newsworthiness. This decision is made in the newsroom--not in the advertising department. John Troutt, Jr. the Sun's editor and publisher, did not worry about the bottom line when he was filing more Freedom of Information Act lawsuits than any other publisher in Arkansas. He did not worry about the bottom line or journalism awards while directing the newspaper's coverage of the Westside Middle School shooting tragedy in March 1998. He made the tough calls without regard to overtime and newsprint costs. He made these decisions because he is a newspaperman. Still, the Sun was the first runner-up for the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Westside shootings. Due to technology, as well as the economic and estate tax conditions that exist today, it has become increasingly difficult for independent newspapers to survive. Yet the independent local paper is most often the conscience, face, and voice of the community. The conglomerates that now dominate the newspaper industry must now rise to the challenge to fill the void left by these disappearing institutions. With this in mind, I was very pleased to read the words of Fred Paxton, the chairman of the Paxton Media Group, which is assuming responsibility for the Sun. ``As is the case with the Troutts, ours is a family-owned newspaper company,'' Paxton noted. ``As we have grown, we have sought to combine the best elements of local family ownership with the advantages and operating efficiencies of a larger organization.'' ``We have a philosophy about the role a newspaper should play in its community, but we rely on local managers to adapt that philosophy to each community in which we operate. We believe a newspaper should be a reflection of the community it serves,'' Paxton emphasized. ``Publishers and editors make the final decisions about news and editorial content, and virtually every key business decision is made at the local level.'' John Troutt, Jr., representing the third-generation of the family directing the operations of the Jonesboro Sun, observed that the Paxton Media Group is a fourth-generation family-owned media company with more than a century of history in the newspaper industry. It is important that family newspapers survive, because I believe family ownership can make a difference. But most importantly, I hope we will always have newspapers like the Jonesboro Sun, with an independent spirit and the courage to report the truth with fairness. Our democracy depends on it.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Arkansan, and I am proud to recognize John Troutt, Jr. in the Congress for his invaluable contributions and service to our nation. John Troutt, Jr. for many defines the daily newspaperman. Almost anyone can call himself or herself an editor or publisher, but few can fill the role of a newspaperman. He is an anachronism in this corporate-driven world that equates bigger with better. A highly successful businessman, he has stood at the helm of The Jonesboro Sun for decades, guiding the growth of The Sun from a small afternoon daily newspaper to the largest, independent family-owned publication in Arkansas that serves as the regional morning paper in the Northeast area of the state. His recent announcement that The Sun will be sold to the Paxton Media Group of Paducah, Kentucky, was felt across the state of Arkansas. Other newpapermen have paid tribute to Troutt in recent weeks after learning The Sun was up for sale. For two decades he has served as editor, overseeing the newsroom, and as publisher, overseeing the business side of the newspaper, in addition to assuming the role of night editor two nights a week, in charge of putting out the next morning's edition. Very few newspapermen have had the love of the business or sufficient stamina--he will be 71 in October--to fulfill his many roles, much less fulfill them with his energy and passion. Every day he writes The Sun's editorials. Readers have no difficulty understanding where he stands. He has not hesitated to call on public officials and bodies to correct what he views as an errant course. In newspaper circles, he is best known for his beliefs in the tenets of the first amendment. He has filed more lawsuits than any other Arkansas editor or publisher to enforce the provisions of the state Freedom of Information Act. ``The public's business should be done in public'' is his oft-repeated philosophy. John has been a mentor, advisor, and friend to all of Northeast Arkansas. He has dedicated his life to serving his fellow citizens as a leader in both his profession and his community, and he deserves our respect and gratitude for his contributions. On behalf of the Congress, I extend congratulations and best wishes to my good friend John Troutt, Jr. on his successes and achievements.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great Arkansan, and I am proud to recognize Polly Fisher in the Congress for her invaluable contributions and service to our Nation. Polly Fisher distinguished herself through her devotion to her family, friends, and community. She was born in Fisherville, TN, on May 19, 1920, the daughter of Dr. John Samuel and Alverta Dunn Miller. Shortly thereafter, she moved to Arkansas, and graduated from Parkin High School before attending Arkansas Tech University in Russellville. One of the happiest days of her life surely must have been March 5, 1945, when she married Harrell Cecil Fisher. Many more happy days followed, thanks to the births of her daughter, 5 sons, 10 grandchildren, and 4 great-grandchildren. One of those sons, Roger Fisher, worked for the people of the First Congressional District of Arkansas as a field representative, and he was a tremendous asset to our office, to the people of our State, and to our Nation. Polly Fisher is probably best-known for her work with developmentally disabled and delayed children through Miss Polly's Day Care Center in Wynne, AR. Her generosity and hard word touched many families in Cross County and surrounding areas, and her legacy will inspire those who continue to provide these important services at the facility that bears her name. Sadly, Polly Fisher passed away last month. Her congregation at the Wynne Baptist Church, where she was church secretary for 20 years, will miss her greatly, as will her family and friends. I am among this group, and on behalf of the Congress I extend my deepest sympathies to her family, even as I encourage them to join me in celebrating her extraordinary life.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his leadership in this matter, and the Democratic leadership for providing this hour for us to discuss this important issue. I appreciate my colleagues from around the country being here this evening to talk about this issue. I also want to thank the many Republicans that have provided leadership on this issue: the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and of course the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has worked so hard to see that the American people get treated fairly as prescription drug prices are too high and we try to bring them down. They have done a great job in providing leadership for this issue. We want the prescription drug manufacturers in this country to be successful. We want them to continue to be profitable. But there is something wrong when we allow Americans to have to pay 30 to 40, 50, 60 percent more for their medicine than any other country in the world. The pharmaceutical manufacturers have engaged in what we try to charitably call a misleading campaign. The fact is the ads that they are running and millions and millions of dollars worth of them that they are running every day now all over the country trying to convince the American people that their safety is threatened, their health is threatened if we import these medicines at the same price that other countries buy them, the fact is that calling them ``misleading'' is being very kind. It is just simply a lie. These companies are simply willing to do anything to continue to be able to rob the American people. As has already been mentioned, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler who served under both Presidents Bush and Clinton has said in a letter, ``I believe the importation of these products could be done without causing a greater health risk to Americans than currently exists.'' The truth is Secretary Shalala has called the Senate amendment promising and does not oppose it. All Americans need to be protected from outrageously high prescription drug prices. There is no need to allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue to rob the American people. In June, I was in Cuba to visit with the Cubans primarily to talk to them about buying some of our agricultural products. We had a great discussion. They are certainly willing and interested and desirous of buying our agricultural products. As we concluded our discussions, I said to them, ``We've talked about food, about agricultural products. What about pharmaceuticals? Do you not want to buy our pharmaceuticals?'' And they laughed. These are very nice people. They did not want to do anything to offend us, but they laughed. And they said, ``Why would we want to buy your pharmaceuticals? We can buy your pharmaceuticals anywhere in the world. We can buy them in Canada, we can buy them in Panama, we can buy them in Mexico for half what you're paying for them. Why would we want in on a deal like that?'' And then they asked a question that I could not answer and it is unbelievable to me today that we stand here in an empty House at 4:30 in the afternoon and still we have not answered the question, ``Why do you do that to your people?'' they said. I could not answer that question. There is absolutely no reason why the Congress should not follow through this year and enact this provision that will clearly lower the price of prescription medicine to Americans. I was disappointed to read yesterday that some powerful Republican Members may try to have this provision removed from the agricultural appropriations bill. They will try to disguise an appropriations bill in some way where we will not be able to tell that it has been removed until the bill has passed. Countries in the EU, the European Union, benefit from international price competition for our pharmaceuticals. They have been doing this for years, and they suffer no ill effects from it. This whole idea that the pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to try to promote that it is unsafe is absolutely ridiculous. Our senior citizens are crossing our borders en masse to buy prescription drugs they need from Canada and Mexico. The solution we support would give all Americans access to safe and effective FDA- approved drugs made in FDA-approved facilities at international prices and give FDA the oversight it needs to know imported drugs are safe through the use of testing and other means. It is very deceptive and manipulative for the pharmaceutical industry to claim proposals which require documents, labeling and testing put American patients at risk. That is just simply not true. From 1991 to 1997, the amount of drugs imported for consumption by global drug makers jumped from $6.1 billion to $12.8 billion. All evidence indicates that these imports have continued to climb. For the drugs we support allowing the importation of, the new standards will be more stringent than those that apply to the billions of dollars' worth of foreign drugs that manufacturers are bringing into this country today. Another point that is important to remember is that the effect of our legislation is not only to facilitate the importation of reasonably priced medicine; but once U.S. manufacturers are no longer shielded from international price competition, the free market will absolutely demand that these prices go down. Interestingly enough, the same people that talk about a free market, a free market situation day after day on the other side of the aisle, are the very people today that do not want a free market situation. They want to protect these drug companies that have contributed millions and millions of dollars to their campaigns. Dr. Christopher Rhodes, a University of Rhode Island expert in the field of applied pharmaceutical research, recently testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on the issue of safety. He testified that by implementing a system which requires documentation and testing, it was his ``considered professional opinion that the process of using reimported prescription medicine in the United States need not place the American public at any increased risk of ineffective or dangerous products.'' Dr. Sidney Wolfe, a health and safety expert at Public Citizen said, ``It is ironic how PhRMA worries about safety when lower prices are involved. The Prescription Drug Parity Act requires safety precautions above and beyond the FDA requirements and consumer protections Americans rely on when purchasing pharmaceuticals made in foreign countries.'' I would ask you today, where is this House? There is a lot of daylight left today and there is nobody here. Why is the House not here on the floor today? Because we need this legislation today. We have got Americans all over this country paying too much for their medicine, many senior citizens; but all of our citizens are paying more than they should have to pay. It is absolutely outrageous that this Congress allows this to go on and the Republican leadership just simply does not do anything about it.

Mr. BERRY. I will certainly yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.