Marion Berry

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. The gentlewoman from Ohio, who has provided great leadership in the Committee on Appropriations on this matter, is absolutely right. It is unforgivable for the Republican leadership to let our senior citizens continue to be robbed on a daily basis while we do nothing. We are gone. No one is here. We should be here working on this legislation and passing it. I come from a small town in Arkansas. We do not lock the doors or take the keys out of our cars. Everybody knows everyone else. If we had someone going around robbing our citizens, and especially our senior citizens in that community, we would put a stop to it and we would put a stop to it right away. We would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. We would do something about it today. These companies are robbing the American people, and they are robbing our senior citizens. You do not have to assault someone to rob them. These people have figured out a way to rob someone without going into their home or assaulting them.

Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio again for her leadership and certainly agree with her comments. I would just make one more plea to the leadership of this House. Back in 1995 and 1996, we had lobbyists in the back rooms here writing legislation. That is absolutely unforgivable. We should not allow this to happen. I hope the American people realize that the leadership in this House today is simply ignoring the great need that we have out there to deal with the prescription drug issue and provide lower-priced prescription drugs and provide a good prescription drug benefit plan for our Medicare recipients.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, since the Drug Price Competition and Patent Restoration Act, better known as the Waxman-Hatch Act, was signed into law in 1984, generic drugs have been a major source of relief for many Americans who face extraordinarily high prescription drug prices. The law struck a balance between the generic pharmaceutical industry and brand-name companies. It did this by speeding up the approval process for generic drugs, and also by guaranteeing brand-name companies a minimum amount of market exclusivity before generics are allowed to compete. After the passage of Waxman-Hatch, the generic pharmaceutical industry grew from a $2 billion industry in 1984 to $8 billion in 1997. Over the same period, brand-name companies' sales grew from $17 billion to $77 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic pharmaceuticals saved consumers $8 to $10 billion dollars in 1994 alone. As fast as drug prices have been rising in recent years, they would have increased much faster if consumers had not had access to generic alternatives. Despite the great benefit generic alternatives have provided to many patients, I am concerned about the activities some brand-name manufacturers have engaged in to obstruct generic competition. These efforts by brand-name companies include using payments to generic competitors, which are legally entitled to a period of being the exclusive competitor for 180 days, not to bring their product to market--in effect, this is buying a perpetual monopoly. Attempts to spread false information, lobby state legislators to restrict generic competition, and circumvent the ordinary process by having Congress pass special legislation granting patent extensions are other examples of anti-competitive behavior. I have a great appreciation for what the generic pharmaceutical industry has done to benefit American consumers, and I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future Congress will consider additional pro- consumer legislation to ensure consumers have increased access to more affordable generic prescription drugs.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for yielding me the time. He has done a great job in the leadership of health care in this House, and we appreciate what he has done. He has been at this longer than I have. It is also nice to join my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman). I appreciate their efforts on behalf of the American people to see that our senior citizens have a decent prescription drug benefit with Medicare. We stand here this evening the greatest Nation that has ever been in the history of the world. There has never been another country that has the economic, the military, and the political power that this country does. And yet our senior citizens, many of them, millions of them, are going to go to bed tonight and not have enough to eat or not have the medicine they need because our prescription drug manufacturers are simply robbing them of that. Medicare was even admitted to being a success by Governor Bush yesterday, even knowing that the former speaker, Mr. Gingrich, and his colleagues in the majority have vowed for years that they would see Medicare wither on the vine, I believe is the way they put it. What we know, and we do not have to spend all of August in the First Congressional District of Arkansas to find this out, we can go to any congressional district in the country, this is a real problem for real people; and it is causing real pain, and it is time that we do something about it. As Congress takes the next month or so to wrap up legislative business for this year, there is simply no excuse for leaving seniors and the disabled without a reliable prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The Republican leadership has reluctantly been forced to put forward what they call a plan because of the overwhelming public outcry created by rapidly escalating, outrageously profitable prescription drug prices charged by manufacturers. Being forced to develop a plan, the best Republican leaders have been able to do is to listen to their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. If they had traveled with any of us over August and listened to the stories that we heard, every one of us heard, and they are heartbreaking, these are people that worked hard, played by the rules, and thought they had made the right decisions to provide for their senior years. They would know that we have got to do something about this problem, and it is time to have a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The Democratic plan will use the purchasing power of our seniors covered by Medicare to negotiate large discounts from drug makers. I believe Governor Bush said yesterday that that would be a dangerous thing to do. It might actually reduce by a little bit the outrageous profits of these drug companies. They might actually even have to cut back on some of the tremendous salaries that they pay the people that run these companies, and that would be too bad to cut some of those folks back under maybe $100 million a year. The Republican plan is a cynical game being played with our seniors' health, a shameful attempt to deceive our seniors. They have proposed a large first step toward privatizing Medicare and forcing our seniors to deal with private insurance companies to get the care and the prescription drugs that they need. The insurance companies say they do not want it. They do not want anything to do with it. That is why we have to have Medicare. Medicare is a success. You can ask the Republicans, ``What does it cover?'' And they will tell you, ``Well, we don't know.'' Then you can say, ``How much does it pay?'' And they will say, ``We don't know.'' Then you can say, ``What are the premiums?'' And they will say, ``We don't know.'' They do not want to see drug companies' exorbitant profits damaged. That is what the interest is in the plan that Governor Bush put forward yesterday, that, and continuing to try to destroy Medicare as we know it. Their plan only provides subsidies to their insurance companies, the donors and the pharmaceutical companies' profits rather than giving any direct assistance to our seniors. It does nothing to see that Americans can buy prescription medicine at the same price as every other country in the world and we pay two to three times as much in this country. Their plan is based on the discredited theory that private insurers will offer affordable prescription insurance if they are given enough government subsidies. But the HMOs and the insurance companies just simply say this will not work. It is also unlikely that the country will be able to pay for prescription drug coverage under Medicare because the Republicans are continuing their attempts to squander any available moneys on tax cuts that are disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. The American people want a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and it is time for this Congress and the next President to recognize the tremendous need that our seniors have and do the right thing and pass a legitimate prescription drug benefit for Medicare.

Mr. BERRY. Like many of you, I know that many of you have held public forums and senior meetings and all of those things over and over again, into the hundreds. I hear a lot of criticism about a lot of things, about the government. We all do. I have never had anyone tell me, ``You ought to do away with Medicare.'' I do not understand. Our seniors like Medicare. It is a good program. It works. It is successful. It is what they need. They just need a prescription drug benefit to go along with it. I just simply do not understand why Governor Bush and the Republicans are so determined to destroy it. Why would they want to do that to our seniors when we know this is the only way we can provide decent health care protection for our senior citizens, and it is absolutely a mystery to me why they would engage in this attempt, this shameful attempt, to destroy Medicare that has been such a wonderful thing, and will continue to be if we add a prescription drug benefit to it.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great Arkansan. Today President Clinton, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and many other distinguished citizens of Arkansas are attending a memorial service in Fayetteville to celebrate and honor the life of Diane Blair, who passed away last month. I believe that Diane Blair also deserves a tribute in the Congress, because her influence and service impacted our nation as well. Diane was first and foremost a professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, and it was through this role that she touched an entire generation of Americans. She literally ``wrote the book'' on Arkansas politics--Arkansas Politics and Government: Do the People Rule? still stands as the one and only authoritative treatment of the subject. Beyond her academic accomplishments, Diane is best remembered as a caring and thoughtful teacher. She engaged her students, and imparted her love of learning to them. Moreover, through her example she inspired countless people to become active in the political system. She was the conscience of the Democratic party in Arkansas for years, but her grace and magnanimity attracted admirers from across the political spectrum. She was an outspoken advocate for women and education, and for progress in general. Her accomplishments are manifold and diverse: chairwoman of state and national commissions, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; professor emerita; author and editor of two books; mother of five, grandmother of two. The life of Diane Blair will be memorialized in many ways. The University of Arkansas will create a center for the study of southern political culture in her name. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has already named its new boardroom in her honor. However, the best memorial to Diane Blair exists in the hearts and minds of her friends, students, and loved ones. I am proud to count myself among this fortunate group, and on behalf of the Congress I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Diane Blair in their time of mourning.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great Arkansan. Jake Hartz, Jr. celebrates his 80th birthday this week, and I think that this is a good time to recognize him in the Congress for his accomplishments and service to this country. Our national agriculture was profoundly impacted by Jake's promotion and development of soybean farming. His family brought the first soybean seed to the mid-South, and he achieved remarkable success through the Jacob Hartz Seed Co., a leader in the industry. More than just a businessman, Jake's long-standing service in State and national soybean organizations culminated in his tenure as president of the American Soybean Association; in the interim he founded the Arkansas Soybean Association, served as president of the Arkansas Seed Dealers Association, was named director and finance chairman of the Soybean Council of America, and was an active member of the Arkansas Plant Board. All this while sitting on the board of directors for the Little Rock branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and serving on the trust board of the Boy Scouts of America. Jake was ahead of his time in understanding the importance of research and technology in agriculture. He hired the first registered seed technologist in 1952. In 1973, Jake was appointed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Plant Variety Protection Board, and this experience led him to begin a research program to develop higher-yield, disease-resistant soybean varieties for the mid-South. Soon thereafter, the Hartz Seed Co. established the largest soybean research facility in the southern United States. Even further, Jake worked tirelessly to protect the valuable surface and groundwater supplies in the Grand Prairie region. Through the conservation measures and alternative water supplies he proposed, Jake contributed significantly toward achieving the re-authorization of the Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin project. Numerous awards and honors have been bestowed upon Jake Hartz, including the Presidential ``E'' Certificate for Exports to recognize his outstanding contribution to export expansion in Japan, Mexico, and Spain; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commander's Award for Public Service, in honor of his leadership in protecting natural resources; and special designations from Ducks Unlimited, the Boy Scouts of America, and St. Vincent Infirmary. As a veteran of World War II, a community activist, an outstanding businessman, a leader in agriculture, and a generous public servant, Jake Hartz deserves our respect and gratitude. On behalf of the Congress, I am proud to extend best wishes to my good friend on his 80th birthday.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great Arkansan, and I am proud to recognize Billy J. Felty in the Congress for his invaluable contributions and service to our nation. Next week Bill retire as Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District, thereby completing a distinguished career that spanned more than four decades. He was first employed by the district as an assistant engineer in 1959--shortly thereafter he became a member of the engineering committee of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, and has since served two terms each as the committee's secretary and vice-chairman, and was named chairman in 1982 and 1984. In this capacity he headed a committee that studied the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway, concluding that the floodway is an essential part of the approved flood control plan for the Lower Mississippi Valley, and recommending that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be prepared to utilize the floodway immediately in emergency circumstances. This kind of leadership naturally led to Bill's promotion to Chief Engineer in 1989, which made him responsible for the maintenance and operation of the approximately 160 miles of main line Mississippi River levee and 70 miles of interior levee in the District. His work in this capacity earned him the Army Commanders Award for Public Service, the Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, the Army Bronze Order of the de Fleury Medal, and a Plaque for Dedicated and Devoted Service from the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. In addition to this outstanding record of accomplishment, Bill also found time to be an active member of his community, assuming many influential roles, including President of the West Memphis Jaycees; Charter Member of Senator Blanche Lincoln's State Agriculture Advisory Committee; Chairman of the West Memphis City Board of Adjustments; President of the J.W. Rich Girls Club; and chairman of church committees. Bill dedicated his life to protecting the lives and fortunes of his fellow citizens, and he deserves our respect and gratitude for his contributions. On behalf of the Congress, I extend my best wishes to my good friend Billy Felty on his retirement.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from east Texas (Mr. Turner). It has been a pleasure to work with him all these years that we have worked on this issue. When we started, we did not think it would take this long, did we? But it has been amazing that it has been this difficult to get the right thing done. I also appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for being here this evening and continuing to work on this issue. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) spoke a few minutes ago so eloquently about this problem and about this scheme that the Republicans cooked up to try to make senior citizens think they cared, I was reminded of a story they tell in my part of the country about the fellow that raffled off a dead mule. The only people that got mad or the only person that got mad about that was the fellow that won it. That is the way our senior citizens are going to be if we would be so unfortunate as to have this Republican scheme ever become law. They would be mad about it because they would find out that what they had was something worthless, a dead mule. It is very disturbing to think that something like that could happen on the floor of this House. I do not think it will ever become law. But certainly we are going to do everything we can to prevent that from happening. When Lyndon Johnson 35 years ago signed into law the Medicare bill, it was a great success. It has been a wonderful thing for our senior citizens. We had many senior citizens at that time that had no health care coverage. They just had to do without. When they got sick, they just got sick. They could not afford any health care. They did not get any. That is a shameful thing to allow to happen. When President Johnson signed that bill into law, he made this comment, that we should never ignore those who suffer untended in a land bursting with abundance. I think that is a very powerful statement. I think he was sending a message to us today when he said that. Prescription drugs are the basis of medical care for our senior citizens now. In the district that I am fortunate to represent, we have a large number of senior citizens that live only on Social Security. They do not have any retirement plans. They do not have any other income. Most of them have been able to provide for a decent place to live. They have a homestead. They are able to make it just fine on their Social Security until they get sick and they have to start taking expensive prescription drugs, drugs that one can buy all over the rest of the world for a lot less money than what one can buy in the United States. This is a very disturbing thing that we have allowed the drug medicine makers in this country to take advantage of our senior citizens in such a way. We have simply allowed these prescription drug makers to rob our senior citizens and throw them into abject poverty in many cases. Our Founding Fathers, the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence, before they signed it, and many of those men thought they were signing their own death warrant, they said ``in support of this declaration, we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' I think that, too, is a powerful statement. It led to this great Nation. But as we have worked on this issue and done everything we know to do to get a good vote, to get this issue to the floor and get a good clean vote on it and do the right thing, I have thought many times what these Founding Fathers would think about this great Nation that they founded and this great House of Representatives and this great Congress that they envisioned allowing this to continue to go on. I have just got to believe that they would be ashamed of us. I have got to believe that if they were here tonight, they would keep us here day or night until we did something about this because it is an outrage that we continue to let the prescription medicine makers in this country rob the American people. I think they would say, what is going on here? Why are you doing this? We talk about it on the floor as if it was a political issue. These are real people. They suffer real pain. It is not politics with the people that are affected, and we should realize that. The prescription drug manufacturers in this country have hired some 300 lobbyists, that is over one lobbyist for every two Members of this House of Representatives, to do everything they can to not change their deal. They think they have got a great deal, and they want to keep it that way. The best information that we have is they will still make lots and lots of money. They will still be the most profitable businesses in this country. But we have got to, as a Nation and as a Congress, allow our Americans to buy these medicines at the same prices that all the other countries get to buy them at. That is not fair to let everyone else get a much better deal than we do. A few weeks ago, I was privileged to be on a mission to Cuba. As we visited with the representatives of the Cuban government about buying our food, about buying our agriculture products, and they were excited about that and they wanted to do that, and part of the discussion was food and medicine. We said, Well, you have expressed your desire to buy food. What about our medicine? They said, Oh, we do not want to buy your medicine. We can buy your medicine a lot cheaper than you can. We can buy it from Canada. We can buy it from Panama. We can buy it from Mexico. We can buy it from a lot of places a lot cheaper than you can. Then they said something that made it really come home to me. They said, Why do you do that to your people? Why do you allow that to go on? Why do you allow these companies to rob your people? That is not right. They were absolutely right about that. I will never forget that moment when that was pointed out to us in a very powerful way. We need a prescription drug medicine benefit for Medicare. We need to modernize Medicare and make it a great program that we know it can be and should be. To think that we are going to give the taxpayers' money to the insurance companies in the hopes that they would try to solve this problem when they have told us themselves we do not want any part of it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) mentioned this, it is like selling insurance for haircuts. I have also heard it compared to selling insurance on the house one knows is going to burn down. Senior citizens are going to get sick. They are going to have to take medicines. That is the reason why this needs to be a Medicare benefit and not some insurance scheme that we have already found out over and over and over again it just does not work, as the gentleman has pointed out. The HMO providers in Medicare are pulling out all over the country because it just simply does not work for them, and that is fine. But we have to recognize as a Nation if we are the great neighbors that we claim to be, we must take care of this problem, we must see that our seniors do not get robbed by the prescription makers in this country, and we have got to take care of this terrible situation that has been created.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $693,000 out of the salaries and expenses of the office of the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment at the Department of Agriculture. It puts this money in the Resource Conservation and Development Account. My intent is to point out that farmers are tired of being abused by the bureaucracy. This money would be much better used to assist our producers in the field. Enough is enough. It is time to draw the line. Just yesterday, in the Committee on Agriculture, we had a hearing on EPA's proposed rules on total maximum daily load. This rule would devastate farmers by requiring permits for normal, everyday farming practices. Sadly enough, it was quite clear by the performance of the gentleman from EPA and USDA that their interest is in regulating, let us just regulate. EPA has overstepped its bounds with this rule and many other rules that they have proposed. We might as well not have an Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment. This money would be better spent, as I have said, in technical assistance for our farmers in the field. We can no longer stand by and allow more and more regulations to be placed on America's farmers that benefit no one or nothing. One concrete example is a survey that I have here with me that is proposed by the Administrator of EPA which would go to every aquaculture producer in this country. This survey would require farmers, under penalty of law, to turn over their income statements and balance sheets. What does confidential financial information have to do with water quality? Nothing. The USDA should stand up for America's farmers and prevent such misdirected Government regulation from going forward. This has not happened. This is part of the job of the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment. In the past 9 months, the administration has proposed at least 10 new regulations to be imposed on agriculture. Most of these regulations have come from EPA. With each regulation, EPA has failed to follow a transparent process and use good science in an effort to show the need for what they are trying to do. This problem has not been the goal to clean the environment. The problem has been with the process and principles used to make regulatory decisions and the collusion between the Natural Resources and Environment Agency and EPA. The USDA must stand up to these bureaucratic, unscientific, and impractical efforts of EPA. Our farmers are faced daily with overwhelming bureaucratic rules that they can no longer tolerate. The USDA should be representing this viewpoint. They have not, as I have said. This includes the regulations on total maximum daily load proposals. Let me be clear. Farmers need an advocate in the decision-making process. We must have an advocate at USDA, and they should be fulfilling this role. I hope that in the future the USDA will stand up for agriculture in this process. My amendment is intended to highlight the need for an advocate. Producers must be represented as these decisions are being made. I would hope that this amendment would bring attention not only from USDA and EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Services and all the other Federal agencies that seem determined to tell every farmer and landowner in this country exactly what they can do and how they can do it. Agriculture deserves to have a voice and especially when regulations are being developed. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Congress to stand up for America's farmers and approve this amendment.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for his effort and his work addressing a very legitimate problem of Americans getting ripped off by drug manufacturers every time they visit their local pharmacy. Undoubtedly, something is needed to rectify the injustice that has resulted in Americans paying more for FDA-approved products made in FDA-approved facilities than citizens of any other country in the world. I have here two bottles. Both of them are Claritin, made by Schering Corporation. One of them is sold in North Dakota for $219 for 100 tablets. The same 100 tablets in Canada is $61. It is one of the safest drugs ever made by man. It is unbelievable how safe this product is. Yet, the American people get ripped off, pay four times what they ought to have to pay for this product just because of the laws of the country that protect the prescription drug manufacturers in this country. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has approached this legislation with noble intentions and placed much effort into passing it. While I support his efforts, Congress should take a much more comprehensive approach in dealing with this situation. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the burden is on the importer to demonstrate that an imported drug is safe, effective, and approved by the FDA. That product was originally made in an FDA-approved facility. As long as FDA approval information is not required to follow drugs sold abroad, importation by anyone other than the manufacturer will be next to impossible. There is also a great need to revisit a provision in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that protects American pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the consumers. This provision makes it illegal for anyone other than the manufacturer to reimport into the U.S. prescription medicine made by an American pharmaceutical manufacturer. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Dear Colleague letter concerning H.R. 1885. The letter referred to is as follows: Since 1994, Drug Makers Have Imported More foreign-Made Drugs Into The U.S. Than They Have Exported! allowing pharmacies and wholesalers the same authority to import safe, lower-priced, fda approved prescription drugs would save billions of dollars for patients and american businesses!!! According to a recent analysis of global prescriptions drug pricing, the same prescription drugs an American citizen would spend $1.00 to purchase, would only cost $0.71 in Germany, $0.68 in Sweden, $0.65 in the United Kingdom, $0.64 in Canada, $0.57 in France, or $0.51 in Italy. Economic experts agree that under a market system without regulatory or trade barriers, significant price differentials in prescription drugs would not be sustainable. Products would be bought from the lower-priced, foreign countries and then resold in the higher-priced country. Economic theory holds that as this process (known as arbitrage) occurs, prices in the lower-priced country would rise while prices in the higher-priced country would fall. Under FDA regulations and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, only the manufacturers of a drug can import it into the United States. Drug makers have unfairly used this monopoly control over distribution in the United States to discriminate against American consumers. By supporting H.R. 1885, The International Prescription Drug Parity Act, you can help level the playing field for American patients as well as businesses who are struggling to continue providing employees and retirees with quality, private sector coverage for prescription drugs. H.R. 1885 amends the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow American pharmacies and wholesalers to competitively purchase drugs abroad that were manufactured in FDA approved facilities, which have been safely stored and still meet FDA's standards, and pass significant savings down to consumers. Americans will benefit by being able to obtain needed prescription medicines on a more affordable basis. Under H.R. 1885, pharmacies and wholesalers importing drugs would still have to meet the same standards set by FDA, which allowed $12.8 billion worth of drugs to be imported into the U.S. by manufacturers in 1997. Sincerely, Jo Ann Emerson, Marion Berry, Bernie Sanders, Members of Congress. (Table attachment).

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in this House. The reason it is so sad is because the Republicans have presented us with not a bill, not a plan, but a sham that is so bad and so ugly that they do not even want it compared to anything else. We have not been allowed a substitute. We have not been allowed an amendment. And this is a sad thing for the Republicans to do to the good people of this country. We have real people with real problems and real pain suffering every day because they cannot afford their prescription medicine. The Republican plan is nothing more than an attempt to deceive our senior citizens and protect the outrageous profits of the prescription medicine makers of this country. It is a shame that we would allow this important debate to take place with no alternatives at all offered. I urge the defeat of the Republican plan.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to call attention to the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency is absolutely out of control. They have adopted a policy of any means is justified by its political ends. They seem absolutely determined to destroy the family farm as we know it today. They have completely abandoned sound science, or any science, for that matter. They pursue the idea that any regulation is a good regulation as long as it causes a lot of chaos and economic disruption. Earlier this year, EPA attempted to regulate as a point source silviculture in this country. They have pretty well been falled by that effort. But now they are attempting, in a rather secretive way, to try to regulate aquaculture, another very important agricultural pursuit in this country. They have absolutely no scientific data indicating that there is a problem with pollution with aquaculture industry. After all, these farmers raise fish, they do not want their produce growing in polluted water. The Environmental Protection Agency, as part of their plan to implement their regulatory process based on the economic success of their producers, they have this form that they are asking our aquaculture producers to fill out. And if they do not fill it out, there will be a penalty and they will be in violation of a Federal law and there is a severe threat. One of the questions they ask, and they do not ask any questions in this form, not one, about water quality or how they treat your water. What they do ask, Mr. Speaker, is, If this company borrows money to finance capital improvements, such as waste water treatment equipment, what interest rates would they pay? In the event that this company does not borrow money to finance capital improvements, what equity rate would it use? When you finance capital improvements, what is the approximate mix of debt and equity? What are your revenues from aquaculture? The revenue from other agriculture activities that are co- located with aquaculture? What are other farm facility revenues? Do you get Government payments and how much are those Government payments? Is there other non-farm income? What are the total revenues? And the list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. This is not a questionnaire to help improve the water quality of this country or the areas where aquaculture is located. This is an attempt to destroy an industry, one more attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to destroy agriculture in this country as we know it. It is time for it to stop. Enough is enough. The Environmental Protection Agency should be the premier scientific agency of this Nation. And yet, it has turned itself into nothing more than a political yardage to pursue perfectly legitimate and harmless industries.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman has provided outstanding leadership on this matter and I think he has done one of the finest jobs of explaining this entire issue that I have ever heard, and I want to thank the gentleman for that. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his leadership and all of the other members of the Prescription Drug Task Force for the effort that they have put into this. As the gentleman has said, Americans pay outrageously high prices for prescription drugs. Over and over and over we hear it from our constituents. They must make the choice between food and medicine. There is no way that the greatest Nation in the history of the world should allow something like this to go on. It just simply is not fair that our senior citizens and all Americans pay more than any other country for medicine; they pay more than the big HMOs and the big hospitals pay for medicine, and even though it sounds ridiculous, they pay more than animals have to pay for medicine. Is it not a sad thing that we have allowed this to go on this long, only in the name of preserving the profits of the prescription drug manufacturers of this country. That is the only reason, is just for money, just for profits. Mr. Speaker, the need for an optional, meaningful and defined Medicare prescription drug benefit that is available to all seniors if they want it is absolutely without question. Under the Republican plan, Medicare would not provide a single dollar of premium assistance for middle class Medicare beneficiaries. Instead of offering the defined benefit under Medicare, Republicans want to force our seniors to have to go into HMOs, into private plans that make profits by restricting access to their prescription medicines. The unworkable Republican scheme would give money directly to participating HMOs and insurance companies for part of the cost of the most expensive enrollees, hoping that this will result in lower premiums. The plain and simple difference is that the Republicans want to take our tax dollars and give that money to the insurance companies and hope that something good is going to happen when, in fact, the insurance companies say they do not want it. They do not want any part of it. This is only a shameful attempt to trick our senior citizens and, once again, protect the outrageous profits of the prescription drug manufacturers of this country. Mr. Speaker, it is very unlikely that private insurers will even offer these plans that the Republicans are talking about. Jim Cohn of the Health Insurance Association of America testified before the Committee on Ways and Means last week that it would be virtually impossible for insurers to offer coverage to seniors at an affordable premium. We are going to find out in just a few weeks that we are in better shape than we ever imagined only a few years ago with our budget in this country. We are going to have a little money to do something with. Along with many of the other blue dogs, I have supported the idea of taking care of Medicare and Social Security first, paying down our debt, investing in education and infrastructure, and also doing some priority things that we need to do, and I think prescription drugs comes at the top of that list. It is time that we did something for our senior citizens that is meaningful, that gives them the ability to buy their medicine at a reasonable price and protects them from the economic disaster that the high cost of prescription medication brings on many of our seniors every day in this country. It is a terrible thing to see this happen, and it is unbelievable that the United States Congress has not done something about it. Once again, I want to congratulate and thank my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership on this matter and applaud his effort and the efforts of the Democrats to continue to bring this issue forward and to end up before we adjourn this year with a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens in this country and, hopefully, another benefit will be a reasonable price for medicine for all Americans.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who is a dear friend of mine, Richard Simmons, on the occasion of his retirement from elected service to the constituents of State House District 84. Richard Simmons has served the State of Arkansas and his country all of his life. He graduated from Rector, Arkansas High School in 1959 and later Mississippi State University with a degree in agriculture. In addition to Richard's schooling, he served six years in the Air Force Reserves. He is a lifelong resident of Clay County and has been active in farming since 1965. Through his years in Arkansas, Richard has been active in state, civic, and community life and has always worked to represent agriculture, the greatest profession ever. He has served on the Clay County Conservation District Board for twenty years. He is currently Vice Chairman of that agency. Richard has also served on the Democratic Central Committee for twenty years and has been the Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee for ten years now. Richard has been the State Representative from District 84 since 1995 and is unfortunately ending his elected career due to term-limits. He has helped make strides in agriculture and economic development all across Arkansas by serving on the Rules Committee, House Revenue and Taxation Committee, Game and Fish Funding Sub-Committee, and Chairman of the House Agriculture and Economic Development Committee. Richard is also the Chairman of the First District House Caucus. Richard Simmons resides in Rector, Arkansas, where he grew up. He has devoted his life to agriculture and Arkansas and the world is a better place becasue of his service. I am proud to call him my friend and I wish him the best of luck in the future and many more years of happiness and service to this great country of ours.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for the great work they have done and the leadership they have provided for all of American agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act and in support of the emergency assistance contained in this bill. Food and fiber production in this country is a national security interest, second only to national defense. Every citizen of this country benefits from the safest, most affordable and most abundant food supply in the history of the world. Americans spend less of their income on food than almost any other country in the world. This is a direct result of the productivity of American agriculture. When agriculture is suffering through difficult times, such as the times of low commodity prices that we face now, it is essential that Congress and the President act to preserve agriculture productivity. Farmers need emergency assistance right now to stay in business. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, so that American agriculture is able to continue to fuel the economic development of this country by providing a reliable, reasonably priced food supply. This bill also makes the Federal Crop Insurance Program a better risk management tool for America's farmers. Farmers will pay less for crop insurance at every level of coverage as a result of this bill. By offering increased premium subsidies, this bill encourages farmers to purchase crop insurance and protect themselves against low yields and weather disasters. This bill also goes a long way towards reducing fraud and abuse in the crop insurance system. For years this has been a problem that has plagued the system by those who attempt to fraudulently gain payment through crop insurance. This bill provides stiffer penalties to attempt to root out this abuse. I have always believed that crop insurance was not a viable tool because it was ridden by this fraud and abuse, but this bill greatly helps this problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their leadership on this matter. I rise in support of permanent normal trade relations with China. If Congress does not grant permanent normal trade relations to China, it will be the worst economic mistake this country has made since the Great Depression. Without a doubt, this agreement is good from an economic standpoint, from a human rights standpoint, from a national security standpoint. Nearly every industry in the United States will see a direct benefit from tariff reductions on American goods going into China. Agriculture, financial services, insurance, telecommunications, information and technology, and a host of other industries will directly benefit from this agreement. Jobs will also be created to meet the growing demand for products in China. American agriculture will benefit as much as anyone. More rice, wheat, cotton, soybeans, poultry, pork, beef and a host of other products will be sent to China directly from Arkansas and other States. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to commend the President, the Speaker of the House, and leaders on both sides of the aisle for their work on China permanent normal trade relations. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) of the Committee on Agriculture and the ranking member the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their work on opening markets with China and many other countries. I want to commend Ambassador Barshefsky, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley for their work in opening markets to American agriculture and other commodities. If Congress does not pass PNTR for China, it will be the worst economic policy decision since the Smoot-Hawley act of 1930 that the Congress has made. Smoot-Hawley was based on the idea that our economy can succeed while all other economies of the world fail. This is simply not the case. Failure to pass PNTR will be a step toward the isolation of Smoot-Hawley and a step away from the global business practices which have fueled our economic growth. PNTR is a good deal for business, workers, farmers, consumers and all Americans. It is an especially good deal for American agriculture. We produce more food than we can consume. With 1.3 billion people, 20 percent of the world's population, China must import food to feed its people. Based on this fact, the agriculture relationship is a win-win situation for both countries. For the district that I am fortunate to represent, the First Congressional District of Arkansas, China PNTR represents opening the largest market in the world to rice, soybeans, cotton, wheat, poultry, fish, beef, pork and other products. Agriculture is just one example of the tremendous benefits that China PNTR holds for Arkansas and America. This agreement is also good for financial services, insurance, information and technology, automobiles, chemicals, entertainment, telecommunications and many others. When average tariffs for American products that are going into China are cut from 24 to 9 percent, only good things can result for America's economy. American farmers and businesses can compete on a level playing field with anyone else in the world. This agreement goes a long way towards creating a level playing field between America and China. Additionally, we give up nothing by granting China PNTR. This agreement grants us access to their markets but does not give them any more access to our market than they already have. If China PNTR does not happen, we will lose out, the rest of the world will gain, other countries in regions from Europe to South America will be doing business and laughing all the way to the bank with their profits. If we do not pass PNTR, the principal effect will be to deny the American economy the benefits of trading with the largest country and the largest population in the world. I also firmly believe that China's human rights record must improve. The best way to be accomplish this is to bring them into the international community. By trading with them rather than refusing to relate to them, we will be able to have a positive influence on human rights in China. Another common misperception is that China PNTR is bad for industries which have been hurt by trade. This is simply not true. We will have stronger trade laws under this agreement with a product-specific safeguard and permission to unilaterally retaliate should the Chinese engage in unfair trading practices. This agreement contains strong legal protections for American industries. If we fail to pass PNTR, American business will lose these protections. Mr. Speaker, this decision is the right one. Trade with China is good from an economic standpoint, from a human rights standpoint, and from a national security standpoint. We must not allow China PNTR to be bogged down by politics. We should pass PNTR because it is the right thing to do for America.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Pallone) for his leadership in all health care matters, Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drugs, all other health care issues that we have dealt with since I have been in the United States Congress. He has done a great job and I appreciate him; and I also say that to my colleagues, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has also provided great leadership on this prescription drug issue, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor this evening, because, quite simply, the prescription drug manufacturers in this country are ripping off the American people, and even worse, they are ripping off the senior citizens of this country. It is absolutely unbelievable that, as a Congress, we allow this to go on day after day after day. In the district that I am fortunate enough to represent, I never stop and visit anyone that this issue does not come up, that we do not have to talk about the fact that we have senior citizens that have to make a decision on a daily basis whether or not to buy something to eat or to buy their medicine. This is a situation that we cannot allow to go on. Mr. Speaker, I come from a small town. If we had someone in that small town going door to door, stealing from senior citizens, taking the money out of their pocket, throwing them into such economic circumstances that they were not able to buy food or stay alive because they did not have the money to buy their medicine, we would go find that person, and we would lock them up, I hope; but at the very least we would stop it from happening. Yet we are allowing the prescription drug manufacturers in this country to continue to go into our citizens' homes on a daily basis and create this situation, and they are doing it legally. Americans are just simply overcharged for these products, and it is not right. The taxpayers of this country pay for the research and development, most of it that takes place through grants, through tax credits, through various other mechanisms that we make possible. These same companies have the lowest taxes on their profits of any companies in the country. Americans pay for this research that the whole world benefits from; and yet we are charged two to three times as much for these products as any other nation in the world. It is just simply not fair, and it is time the Congress does something about it. When you have something that is this unfair, it is the job of the United States Congress to step in and do something about it. Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues this evening to recognize this problem and do the right thing. We have just seen in the last few months a great uproar in this country over whether or not a young man from Cuba would be sent back to be with his father, whether he would stay Here. We are all concerned about that situation. That situation pales in comparison to the hardship that our senior citizens are put in every day because of prescription drug companies in this country are charging them far more than they charge anyone else in the world, and they just simply cannot afford it. And we, as a Nation, cannot afford it anymore. Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues to take this opportunity to do something about it.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise once again to address the high costs of prescription drugs in this country, and the recently released Republican plan that will do absolutely nothing to help the people of this country, especially our senior citizens, who are struggling with these high prescription drug prices. The Republicans have finally released that the seniors in their districts and across this country are struggling with these high prescription drug prices. So they came up with a plan, a phony plan, one that does not guarantee our seniors affordable prescription drugs. It does provide a plan to protect the profits of the prescription drug manufacturers in this country. They say that the seniors will be able to buy private prescription drug plans. Do these private plans mean that seniors will be able to afford their medicines? Madam Speaker, there is nothing in their plan that does that. The GAO proposal creates a brand new bureaucracy, a very inefficient counterproductive system for providing and subsidizing a drug benefit. We know that we need to provide a drug benefit for our senior citizens, particularly those on Medicare. A recently released White House report shows that 43 percent of rural residents on Medicare have no prescription drug coverage. Those without coverage pay nearly twice as much out of pocket as anyone else. The report is just another justification that seniors need a good prescription drug benefit under Medicare. They need access to lower- priced prescription drugs, like all the rest of the world has. Americans without a prescription drug benefit spend more for their medicine than anyone else in the world. The prescription drug manufacturers are now running ads under the guise of Citizens for Better Medicare. This is a front group for the manufacturers. This ad claims that if you allow a reasonably-priced prescription drug to be sold in this country at relatively the same price that it sold in other countries that you threaten the research and development, the fact is, in countries where they sell these products for half as much as they do in America, they are increasing their research and development faster than they are in the United States. This just simply does not make any sense. They say that to allow Americans to purchase prescription drugs at reasonable prices and at fair prices, like all the rest of the world has, that it would create a situation where our health care system would be in danger and that we would end up with a bad system. There is nothing to that. This is just an attempt to frighten the senior citizens to think that they may not have access at all to good medication. The fact is what the fright should be, what the fright is, the manufacturers are fearful that they will lose their exorbitant profits that they squeeze from the pockets of our senior citizens in this country every day. Their new ad claims that their intention is to import Canada's government controls. The truth is, Canada is now utilizing the purchasing power of the U.S. government. One way the Canadian government keeps brand name drug companies from price gauging is to see at what price drug companies sell their products in other countries. In Canada, the price cannot exceed the median price charged in other developing countries. Starting this year, the U.S. price Canada will use in the international comparisons is the U.S. Federal supply schedule price. We now have Canadians benefitting from the purchasing power of the United States Government. But Americans cannot benefit from that. This is an outrage that Canadians can benefit from U.S. Government discount that we refuse to give our own Medicare recipients. I have introduced legislation that would give U.S. seniors access to lower prescription drug prices that seniors in all other countries enjoy, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act. The senior citizens in the district that I am fortunate to represent and in every district know that they are simply being robbed. Senior citizens across this country expect every Member of Congress to address this situation. Addressing the issues of cost and affordability for prescription drugs as well as finding a reasonable approach to offering drug coverage to Medicare recipients is absolutely essential.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this evening in support of Permanent Normal Trading Relations with China. I want to commend the Speaker of the House for setting a date when we will have the vote before Memorial Day. I want to commend the President for the extraordinary effort that he is putting into this. I want to commend Ambassador Barshefsky; Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman; and Secretary of Commerce, Bill Daley for their strong effort to help us pass Permanent Normal Trading Relations with China. We must approve permanent normal trading relations with China in May, or our economy will suffer for years to come. It will be a terrible mistake for this country not to approve this agreement. There are 1.3 billion people in China, 20 percent of the world's population, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. This is a good deal for America. It cuts overall tariffs from 24 to 9 percent by 2005, cuts overall agriculture tariffs from 31 to 17 percent, it gives us five times more market access for cotton, 20 times more market access for rice, an unbelievable potential for poultry, beef, pork, soybeans, wheat and nearly every other ag product, and a huge potential for technology, banking, telecommunications, insurance. We give up nothing in this agreement, Mr. Speaker. This agreement grants us access to their market. It does not give them any additional access to our markets. China has had access to our markets for the last 20 years. The Chinese want a seat at the international trade negotiating table. They must give access to get that. If this agreement does not happen, we will lose out and the rest of the world will gain. Literally the rest of the world will laugh all the way to the bank. China is going to enter the World Trade Organization whether we pass this agreement or not. Our choice is whether we want to have the same access to a market of 1.3 billion people as the rest of the world. The only choice for us to make is to approve permanent normal trading relations with China.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and thank him for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hutchinson amendment. I also want to thank my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for his leadership in this matter. We have a serious problem in this country, and we have a very serious problem in Arkansas with illegal meth labs. Our law enforcement people struggle every day to deal with it. It is absolutely ridiculous that they would not have the resources they need after they find one of these meth labs and do what they need to do to destroy them to take care of this problem. I urge all the Members to support this amendment and let us do everything we can to fight this horrible scourge on our society.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who is a dear friend of mine, Dewey Faught. Dewey Faught has served the state of Arkansas and his country all of his life. He graduated in 1953 from Eudora High School in Eudora, Arkansas and went on to attend Florida State University, Arkansas State University and the University of Central Arkansas where he studied Business Administration. He also received degrees in Liberal Arts and Agriculture. Dewey is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force having served during the Korean, Vietnam and Cold War. He retired as a Senior Master Sergeant in July of 1974 after 20 years of honorable service. His Squadron was the First Combat Evaluation Group responsible for the administration of the RBS radar sites. His accommodations include the Meritorious Service Award and National Defense Medal. He recently received an accommodation from the Secretary of Defense for his service throughout the Cold War. Dewey also served as Executive Director, Secretary and Treasurer for the Cabot Chamber of Commerce for 20 years. He also served as the Secretary and Treasurer for the Cabot Lions Club for 19 years, where he presently holds the position of President. He has a perfect attendance record for his 20 years of service to the Cabot Lions Club and is responsible for the recruitment of 40 members. He is a lifetime member of the VFW Post #4548 as well as the Disabled American Veterans. He is also a member of the AARP. In 1990 Dewey received recognition from his church, Cabot United Methodist, for his years of service as Sunday school superintendent. In 1983 Dewey was chosen Cabot Citizen of the Year. He was also chosen for the Cabot Community Leadership Award in 1999. His most recent project has him organizing the Cabot Veterans Monument and Memorial, Inc. He is spearheading the construction of this memorial that will honor Veterans in the North Lonoke County communities of Cabot, Austin, and Ward, Arkansas. Dewey Faught is a great American and great Arkansan. He is the kind of citizen that made this nation the great place it is today. He has made Cabot a great place to work, live and raise a family. I am proud to call him my friend. Dewey has been married for 43 years to Jane Powell formerly of Gillett, Arkansas. They have five sons, 17 grandchildren and one great grandchild.

Mr. BERRY

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the Blue Dog substitute and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget is plain and simple, it is irresponsible. Basically their budget adds up to $800 billion in tax cuts that they pay for at the expense of everything else in the budget, especially at the expense of future generations and our Nation's seniors. It puts Social Security and Medicare at risk. The Blue Dog budget protects our Nation's seniors. It increases funding for discretionary health care programs by $4.6 billion over the Republican budget. This higher funding level will allow for increased funding for rural health care programs, health research, and other programs to expand access to health care. The Blue Dog budget establishes a Medicare reserve of $40 billion over the next 5 years and $150 billion over the next 10 years. This reserve could be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, create a prescription drug benefit and provide provider relief that is desperately needed by our hospitals. The Blue Dog budget allocates 25 percent of the debt reduction dividend of the savings and interest on the debt held by the public to provide additional resources for Medicare reform after 2010. We need to do what is right for our Nation's seniors and for our Nation's children and pass the Blue Dog budget.