Mike Ross

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, on July 9th, 2002, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin nine of the Nation's top professional baseball players walked onto the field at Miller Park as the starting lineup for the American League's team at Major League Baseball's 73rd All-Star Game. Among them, in centerfield, was Torii Hunter of the Minnesota Twins. The crowd's eyes were fixed on him because he is known to be a show stopper, but my eyes were fixed upon him because he is from Pine Bluff, AR, in the heart of my own district. In the first inning with two outs and nobody on base in a scoreless game, the crowd was aching for some action. Soon San Francisco's Barry Bonds stepped up to the plate. Hunter took a few steps back. With a 3-0 count, Bonds lashed a fast-ball deep into center field. Hunter raced to the back wall, waited, and timed his jump perfectly to catch the ball well above the fence. The crowd erupted into applause. After the game Hunter said ``I grew up in Arkansas and the All-Star Game is one everybody got to watch on TV. I just want to make the people of my hometown proud. To make a catch against a Hall of Famer on national TV, this is one I'll always remember.'' Some might have been surprised by Torri Hunter's outstanding performance at the All Star game, but his teammates certainly were not. Hunter's breakout performance in 2001 was one of the main reasons the Minnesota Twins battled for first place until the final weeks of the season. A first-round draft pick in 1993, Hunter has been one of the better defensive center fielders in baseball for several seasons but he became an offensive threat last season, hitting 27 home runs, 32 doubles, and knocking in 92 runs. His defense in center field didn't suffer either; he was awarded his first Gold Glove Award during the 2001 season. Hunter's impressive career got its start in South Arkansas. Hunter is a 1993 graduate of Pine Bluff High School where he played baseball, basketball, football and track. He was named first team All-State his junior and senior seasons and played on the South squad in the 1992 Junior Olympics. Hunter was selected to the High School National Team by USA Today, the All American Team by Baseball America, and was named Gatorade's Arkansas Player of the Year in 1993. Mr. Hunter is not only an amazing athlete, but an amazing husband, father and volunteer. He and his wife, Katrina Hall Hunter, have one son, Torii Jr. Hunter also designates his time and effort in support of Big Brothers & Big Sisters of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Through his inspiring career, and his selfless actions, Torii Hunter has indeed made the people of his hometown proud.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I am here tonight to rise in support of seniors all across Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District and seniors all across America who will continue once again tonight to go to bed unable to either afford their medicine or afford to take it properly. As the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned, my wife and I do own a small-town family pharmacy. We live in Prescott, Arkansas, a town of 3,400 people. Our pharmacy is a place where people come to share recent photographs of their children or grandchildren, to celebrate the good times together, and a place to gather to be there for one another during the difficult times. I have got to tell you that over the years in that small-town family pharmacy that we own back home in Prescott, Arkansas, I have seen too many bad times. I have seen too many seniors come through the door who have been to the doctor. Medicare has paid for them to go to the doctor, Medicare has paid for the tests to be run on them at the doctor's office or the hospital, and, as a result of all that, the doctor concludes that a senior citizen needs a certain prescription drug in order to get well or live a healthier lifestyle. They come through the door of our pharmacy and pharmacies throughout America to learn that they either cannot afford their medicine or cannot afford to take it properly. This is America, and we can do better than that by our seniors. That was a driving force behind my decision to run for the United States Congress. I wanted to come here, I wanted to come to the people's House, the United States House of Representatives, and pass legislation that would truly modernize Medicare, to include medicine for our seniors. Let me tell you why. There is a senior citizen, a retired pharmacist, a woman in Glenwood, Arkansas, who makes the point better than I can. She was a relief pharmacist in my hometown at the pharmacy that my mom and dad used when I was a small child growing up, which was not that long ago. She said back in those days, if she had a prescription that she was filling that cost over $5, that she would go ahead and fill the next prescription in line while she built up enough courage and confidence to go out and confront the patient and tell them that their medicine was going to cost $5. That really does drive home the point that today's Medicare really was designed for yesterday's medical care. That is what prescriptions cost back when we created Medicare. Even health insurance companies, who are obviously in the business of making profits, even they cover the cost of medicine. Why? Because they know it helps people live longer and healthier lifestyles and avoid needless doctor visits, needless hospital stays and needless surgeries, the kinds of things that I have personally witnessed in that small family pharmacy that my wife and I own back in Prescott, Arkansas. You see, I have seen seniors leave without their medicine, and, living in a small town, I learn a week later where they are in the hospital running up a $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 Medicare bill, or where they spent $100,000 in Medicare payments to have a leg removed, or where they are now spending $250,000 in Medicare payments to receive kidney dialysis. All these things are avoidable, but it happened to these seniors simply because they could not afford their medicine or could not afford to take it properly. Again, this is America, and we can do better than that by our seniors. So I came to Congress and I wrote a bipartisan bill with the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a Republican. I did it in a bipartisan way because, you see, I think it is time for this Congress to unite behind the need to truly modernize Medicare, to provide medicine for our seniors, just as we have united on this war against terrorism. So we wrote a bill back in January. It was a very fair bill. It called for a $250 annual deductible. It called for an 80 percent/20 percent copayment, with the government or Medicare paying the other 80 percent. Basically what our bill did was treated going to the pharmacy like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. It gave you the freedom to get the medicine your doctor wanted you to have and it gave you the freedom to choose which pharmacy you wanted to use. Our bill took on the big drug manufacturers. We demanded the same kind of rebates from the big drug manufacturers to help offset the cost of this voluntarily but guaranteed Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. We demanded the same kind of rebates from the big drug manufacturers to help pay for this program, just as the big HMOs have been demanding and receiving from the big drug manufacturers for years. Well, the Republican national leadership refused to give us a hearing, they refused to give us a vote on this bipartisan bill. And I continue to come to the floor and talk about the importance of it and remind folks and remind the Republican national leadership that this was a bipartisan bill, it was written by a Democrat and a Republican. But it took on the big drug manufacturers, and they refused to give us a hearing, they refused to give us a vote, and that is wrong. Then, some 4 months before the election, the Republican national leadership decided this was an important issue, so they began to write a bill. In fact, in the middle of writing the bill they had to adjourn the committee meeting to go to a fundraiser sponsored by the big drug manufacturers. Do not take my word for it, please look. It is in the Washington Post, $250,000 a person to attend this fundraiser for the Republicans. Then, after the fundraiser they went back into the committee and continued to write the bill, and then it passed the House. I voted against it, and I voted against it because I refused to vote for something that is no more than a false hope or a false promise for our seniors. That bill failed to take on the big drug manufacturers. That bill did very little, if anything, to help our seniors, and it was the first step toward privatizing Medicare. You see, this Republican prescription drug bill that passed the House, and did not get anywhere in the Senate, by the way, this bill that passed the House does not make prescription drugs a part of Medicare. It simply allows private insurance companies, dozens of them, to go knock on your door or your mom's door or your grandmother's door, all trying to sell the same policy. Then here is what it does. It would require you to pay a monthly premium, but they cannot tell us exactly how much. It would require you to pay the first $250 out of your own pocket. After that, it is more complicated than filling out an income tax return. On the next $1,000 worth of medicine that you need, you are only going to pay 20 percent. That sounds pretty good. On a $100 prescription, you pay $20. After you spend $1,000, and as a small town family pharmacy owner, I can tell you for a lot of seniors that only takes a few months. After you spend $1,000, on the next $1,000, between $1,000 and $2,000, your copayment goes to 50 percent. In other words, on that $1,500 prescription you pay $50. Then after you have spent $2,000, and, again, as a small town family pharmacy owner, I can tell you it only takes a matter of months for some seniors to reach $2,000 worth of medicine expenses, so after you spent $2,000, guess what? Between $2,000 and $3,700, you are back paying the full amount, a 100 percent copayment to our seniors, and yet the bill requires them to continue to pay the monthly premium. If you add it all up, if my addition is right, counting the deductible and the premium and this complicated formula of how much you pay, depending on which day it is and on how much you spent in terms of the copayment, on the first $3,700 worth of medicine you need every year, the government, through Medicare, actually through a private insurance company subsidized by Medicare, is going to provide you with help to the tune of about $600. $600 in savings on a $3,700 drug bill does not help seniors choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their utility bills and paying rent. It is nothing more than a bogus plan. Now, I just spent 5 weeks on the August district work period traveling the 29 counties that make up Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District, one of the more rural and larger districts in America. Seniors came up to me every day and said, ``I know you are working hard for this Medicare prescription drug benefit. When are others going to begin to listen to you?'' And I told them I was coming back to the floor, just as I have done for the past 20 months, and I was going to continue to talk about this in hopes that people will listen, and they will listen to the fact that it is time to write a plan that is bipartisan, that it is time to write a plan that is fair, and that it is time to write a plan that takes on the big drug manufacturers. Let me tell you why. I recently conducted a survey. I compared the price of the five most commonly used brand name drugs that seniors use. I compared the price in Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District with the price paid by seniors for those same drugs in six other countries. Do you know what I found? I found that the price that seniors pay on average in Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District is 110 percent more than what seniors pay in these other countries. And that is wrong. We are talking about drugs that are being invented in America, oftentimes with government subsidized research. They are being made by Americans, they are being packaged by Americans, they are being shipped by Americans, and yet our seniors are asked to pay 110 percent more here than what we are requiring them to pay in other countries. If these other countries, places like Canada and Mexico, if those small governments can stand up to the big drug manufacturers and demand a fair price, why can we not? I am not here to beat up the big drug manufacturers. They create drugs that save lives and help us all to live healthier lifestyles, and I applaud them for that. But sometimes you have got to draw the line and say enough is enough. A recent study indicated that some drug manufacturers spent more money last year on those fancy TV ads than they did on research and development, finding cures for diseases. You know the kind of ads I am talking about, the ones that come on TV where they try to tell you which drug you need to tell your doctor you need. My colleagues, have you ever thought about that? That is crazy. That is crazy, and it is time that we held the big drug manufacturers accountable, and it is time that they step forward in good faith and say we want to do for a Medicare prescription drug plan what we have been doing for the big HMOs and the for-profit companies for years, and that is providing rebates to help offset the cost of the program. I am real disappointed at how the vote on the Republican plan, which was nothing more than a false hope and a false promise for our seniors, unfolded. They brought it to this floor for a vote at 2:39 a.m. on a Friday morning when seniors were fast asleep. I had a plan. I was proud to be one of four cosponsors, original sponsors, of a bill that would provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit. They would not listen to our bipartisan bill, so I came back with another one and was one of four original sponsors of a bill that basically again would treat going to the doctor and going to the hospital and going to the pharmacy all the same. Not only did they bring the bill, the Republican bill written by the drug manufacturers for the benefit of the drug manufacturers, to the floor at 2:39 on a Friday morning, they refused, they refused to allow us to offer up a substitute. They refused to allow us to offer up one single amendment to that bill. All 435 Members of this body were elected the same way, by the people, and we have been sent here to be a voice for the people. I say give us an opportunity to have a vote. I will not even be picky here. I am calling on the leadership to either give me a vote on a bipartisan bill that the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I wrote together, a bipartisan bill to help our seniors, or to give me a vote on the other bill that I wrote and offered up as a Democratic substitute to the Republican plan that passed that Friday morning at 2:39 a.m., that does nothing for our seniors other than offer up a false hope and a false promise. People who know me know that I am not partisan. I am sick and tired of all the partisan bickering that goes on in our Nation's capital. There have been times when I have stood and voted with President Bush. I believe there are extremists in both parties, and I am trying to bring people to the middle to find common-sense solutions to the problems that confront our Nation. I can tell you that on this issue the Republicans are wrong, and it is time for all of us to get right. It is time for all of us to come together. It is time for all of us to work in a bipartisan way to write a bill that will help bring down the high cost of prescription drugs for our seniors and for working families all across America.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Huey Havard, the top law enforcement officer for nearly 10 years in Union County. Sheriff Havard died Sunday, June 23, 2002 after a long struggle with liver cancer. He was 63. Sheriff Havard took office in 1993 but his career in law enforcement began three decades earlier as a 25-year-old patrolman for the El Dorado Police Department. It was then Havard found he had an unending passion to serve and protect the people he knew and loved in Union County. He had the distinction of being one of the first narcotics officers at the El Dorado Police Department and over the years he served as a motorcycle patrolman, commander of the patrol division, and in the detective division, climbing the ranks to sergeant, lieutenant, and finally captain. Havard was named the city's officer of the year in 1973 and served as interim chief of police for a few months before taking a patrol deputy's assignment at the sheriff's office in 1983. During his tenure, Havard increased the number of patrol deputies and began 12-hour shifts for deputies to allow for better patrol coverage. He also assigned deputies to work full-time with the 13th Judicial District Drug Task Force. Sheriff Havard was an honorable, driven, and passionate law officer. He was an amazing man, and an asset to Union County. I understand that this is a difficult time for his wife, Cathy, his mother, Eva, two daughters, Shondra and Laura, stepdaughter, Michele, and all of his many friends and relatives whom he loved dearly. They are in my heart and in my prayers. Huey Havard will be missed greatly. His legacy of hard work, determination, and love of people will live on in the lives he touched and changed forever.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to share with my colleagues the heartbreaking story of a constituent of mine. After hearing of the challenges she has faced and still faces today in order to try and live a normal life, I introduced the Reconstructive Surgery Act of 2002, H.R. 4959. This bill requires health insurance plans to cover medically necessary reconstructive surgery for congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, infection, trauma or disease. As an infant, Wendelyn Osborne was diagnosed with a rare, congenital bone disease, craniometaphysial dysplasia, or CMD, which involves an overgrowth of facial bone that never deteriorates. At the time of her diagnosis, she was the sixteenth CMD case in the world in medical history. Doctors told her parents that she would not live past the age of 10. After many surgeries, starting at the age of 6, Wendelyn has lived to be 36 years old. But she is not free of the harmful effects of her disease. Her facial muscles are paralyzed. Her optic nerve is damaged, and she must wear a hearing aid in order to hear properly. The severity of her abnormalities requires further orthognathic surgeries so she may continue to be able to eat properly. Yet, Mrs. Osborne's insurance company will not cover this procedure because it is considered cosmetic. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) as a cosponsor on this legislation with me. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for joining me here today in our fight in trying to correct the wrong by the big insurance companies. They covered the surgeries that Wendelyn needed until she was about 18, maybe 21. Then it is like they are saying she was not supposed to live this long so we will not cover her operations any more. That is wrong. The Reconstructive Surgery Act that we have written defines medically necessary reconstructive surgery as surgery performed to correct or repair abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors or disease. The surgery must be designed to improve functions or to give the patient a normal appearance to the extent possible in the judgment of the physician performing the surgery. It specifically excludes cosmetic procedures defined as surgery that is performed to alter or reshape the normal structures of the body in order to improve appearance. This bill draws a line between improving looks and improving life, oftentimes, as in Wendelyn's case, perhaps saving a life. Several States have a law requiring insurance coverage of medically necessary reconstructive surgery up to the age of 18. The Reconstructive Surgery Act is an effort to build upon what the States have started as well as address the apparent arbitrary decision-making of some big insurance plans that refuse coverage and question physicians' judgments when patients like Wendelyn Osborne try to get coverage under the plan for which they pay premiums every month. The Reconstructive Surgery Act is endorsed by the National Organization for Rare Disorders, National Foundation for Facial Reconstruction, Easter Seals and the March of Dimes. I am going to fight to move this legislation forward, to help people like Wendelyn Osborne get the reconstructive surgeries that they must have to stay alive and to live as normal and healthy a life as possible, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight. According to one Harvard researcher, there have been CMD sufferers in their 50's and 60's who continue to need surgery to prevent conditions such as this, procedures that will allow them to continue eating and breathing, yet orthognathic surgery is considered cosmetic. Many of you remember the movie ``Mask'' in which Cher played the mother of a boy named Rocky who died from a disease similar to CMD. That movie was based on a true story. Rocky died because his mother couldn't afford the life-saving reconstructive surgeries he needed. Ms. Osborne has never met another person who suffers from CMD, but she has met countless people who struggle with trying to get the reconstructive surgeries they need. People born with cleft lips and palates, with missing pectoral muscles that cause chest deformities, even burn victims--all cases where reconstructive surgery is considered merely cosmetic. For these people, falling into the wrong category means denial of coverage for their medical needs.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition, strong opposition, to this bill. Just a few months ago, I was in Glenwood, Arkansas, a small town in my district, and ran into an elderly woman who is a retired pharmacist and who just happened to be a relief pharmacist in my hometown when I was a small child growing up. She related the story to me about how when I was a child and she was a pharmacist, if she had a prescription that cost over $5, she would go on and fill the next one while she built up enough confidence to let the patient know it was going to cost $5. I think that really demonstrates, more than life itself, that today's Medicare, if we think about it, was really designed for yesterday's medical care. Health insurance companies, which are very greedy, in my opinion, make huge profits and even they cover the cost of medicine. Why? Because they know it helps patients to get well and live healthier lifestyles. As a small town family pharmacy owner, I am sick and tired of seeing seniors leave the doors of our pharmacy without their medicine. And living in a small town, I learn a week or 10 days later where they are in the hospital running up a $10,000 or $20,000 Medicare bill simply because they could not afford their medicine or could not afford to take it properly. So I came to Congress to try to do something about it. This should not be a partisan issue. I wrote a bipartisan bill alongside the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a Republican; and the Republican national leadership would not give us a hearing on our bill. They would not give us a vote on our bill. Now, less than 5 months before, yes, another election, they are coming to us with this plan, this so-called Medicare plan, which has nothing to do with Medicare other than attempting to privatize it, written by the drug manufacturers for the drug manufacturers. I know my colleagues have heard a lot from both sides tonight and that very few seniors are still awake listening because it is midnight, and that is the reason they are bringing it up now, but let me say this: Do not listen to them and do not listen to us. Go to the family pharmacist and ask them which plan is right for America.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Albert Graves, a lawyer, a businessman, and a community leader who died on June 13, 2002, at the age of 92. It has been written of Albert that he built his power in an unusual way by helping the community whenever he could, without regard for who got credit. Albert Graves was born on Christmas Day, 1909, in Hope, AR. Perhaps that was an indication of what a gift he would become to that community. After graduating from Hope High School in 1926 and Hendrix College in 1930, Albert received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1933 and soon joined his father, O.A. Graves, in practicing law. The young attorney made a name for himself in Hope, and at the age of 25 was elected mayor, the youngest in that city's history. Albert served as mayor of Hope from 1935 to 1939, and from 1941 to 1947. His career in public service was not limited to city hall; he served as president of the Hope School Board from 1953-57, and was chairman of the Hope Water and Light Commission. Albert was quite active in Arkansas's law community and was a member of numerous associations and foundations, and he served as chairman of the State Judicial Nominations Committee each year from 1978 until 1982. He was also quite active in the First United Methodist Church, and taught the Century Bible Class for more than 50 years. Albert Graves was Hempstead County's Citizen of the Year in 1978, and was an inspiration and a model for his community. He was well- respected, well-loved, and will be fondly remembered. As a child growing up and attending public school in Hope, I saw him as one who was involved in his community, a successful businessman and accomplished attorney who took the time to give back. I looked up to him and was inspired by his example. My heart goes out to his wife, Marilyn, his three children, seven grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren in what I know is a difficult time for them. I am keeping all of them in my thoughts and in my prayers. While Albert Graves may no longer be with us, his life and legacy live on in the lives of all those he touched.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if the gentleman recalls, he and I were here on the floor while they were out at the fundraiser with the big drug manufacturers talking about this very issue. Let me say that those on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, I am convinced, I know a lot of them, and I am convinced that they love this country just as much as I do. It is not about that. I think it is about being misinformed. Mr. Speaker, when seniors cannot afford a quarter of a million-dollar contribution to get into an event, it makes it difficult for them to get their side of the story heard. So I challenge, I welcome, I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to call seniors in their district, to call their hometown family pharmacies and talk to the pharmacist. They understand these issues, and they know they are going to take a hit as a result of Medicare setting the price on something they now set the price for. They are okay with that, as long as the drug manufacturers share that hit. Do not forget, when one goes into a pharmacy, every dollar we spend, 84 cents, is a direct result of the drug manufacturer; 84 cents out of every dollar, a direct result of the drug manufacturers. I just think they are misinformed. I think they are well-intentioned. I think they are good folks; they love this country like we do. This just happens to be an issue that they do not understand. Seniors cannot afford a quarter of a million-dollar ticket to get into a fundraiser in the middle of writing a bill. So I would ask them to put politics aside, get on the phone and call seniors, call your hometown family pharmacist. Ask them what they think about the Republican bill and the Democratic bill, again, the drug manufacturer bill versus the seniors' bill that will truly modernize Medicare for our seniors.

Mr. ROSS. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlewoman from Texas. It seems like every week we are here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives talking about the need to truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. Yet it seems like the majority, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, only continue to give us rhetoric on this issue. Let me tell you what I mean by that. Let me preface my remarks for those who do not know me in this body. I want to make sure that they clearly understand that I am a conservative Democrat. I have crossed over and voted with the Republicans when I think they are right. On this issue, they are dead wrong; and I believe it is time for some of us to stand up for our seniors and say so. That is why I am proud to rise tonight in opposition to this prodrug manufacturer prescription drug bill and in support of the Democratic alternative, which I refer to as the prosenior bill, a bill that will truly help our seniors. Let me also say that I believe I understand this issue. I understand it because my wife is a pharmacist. We together own a small-town family pharmacy. I have seen seniors in our small town of Prescott, Arkansas, with a population of 3,400 people. In that small town I have seen seniors come through our door after they have been to the doctor. Medicare paid for their doctor bill, Medicare paid for the tests that were run on them, and Medicare will even pay for their hospital stay and surgeries, and yet Medicare does not cover their medicine. Too many times I have seen seniors leave that pharmacy without any medicine because they simply could not afford it. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of talk about them having to choose between their medicine and their rent and their home mortgage and their utilities and their food. A lot of seniors in my district are getting by from Social Security check to Social Security check; and I understand that and I understand it clearly, because that is exactly what my 91-year-old grandmother back home in Prescott, Arkansas, does. She worked hard all of her life. Did not have a retirement at work. Her Social Security check is her only source of income. If you get ill later in the month, oftentimes you are not having to choose because you have already paid out of your $500 Social Security check for those other things: your rent, your utilities, your food. And there is nothing left for your medicine. Living in a small town, I would see a week or 10 days later so many seniors end up in Hope, Arkansas, at the hospital, just 16 miles down the road, running up a $10,000 or $20,000 Medicare bill or required to have a surgery that could exceed $100,000, or diabetics who have legs amputated or require a quarter of a million dollars worth of kidney dialysis before they later died, simply because they could not afford their medicine or could not afford to take it properly. So I am not standing here tonight with a lot of rhetoric; I am standing here tonight with real-life stories from our small-town family pharmacy in Prescott, Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, if we think about it, today's Medicare is designed for yesterday's medical care. I have said this before, but I will say it again because I think it makes a good point. I recently ran into a senior, a woman who is a retired pharmacist in Glenwood, Arkansas, who just happened to be a relief pharmacist in my hometown when I was a small boy growing up. She said, you know, back in those days, which was not that long ago, she said, I would see prescriptions rarely exceed $5; and when I did see a prescription that exceeded $5, I would go ahead and fill the next one while I built up enough courage to go out and tell the patient that their medicine was going to cost over $5. Today, it is nothing for a prescription to cost $100. I think health insurance companies are among the most greedy corporations in America. Even they cover the cost of medicine. Why? Because they know, as the gentleman talked about earlier tonight, they know it holds down the cost of needless doctor visits, the cost of needless hospital stays, and the cost of needless surgeries. All we are trying to do here is pass a bill that will help our seniors get the medicine that they so desperately need. So why is the Republican bill a prodrug manufacturer bill? I do not know. It is crafted by the drug industry for the drug industry. They have been unwilling, the Republicans have been unwilling to work with Democrats to develop a bipartisan bill; and I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is time that this Congress stop talking about this issue and got to work. It is time we united in a bipartisan fashion on the need to truly provide our seniors with the medicine they need, just as we have united on this war against terrorism. Now, the drug manufacturers are going to spend, actually through a front group known as United Seniors Association, they are going to spend $3 million on an ad campaign trying to convince seniors that this Republican plan is good. Again, I have crossed that aisle and voted with the Republicans many times; and when they are right, I will vote with them. I am a conservative Democrat from south Arkansas, but I can tell my colleagues this: on this issue, I understand this issue, and on this issue they are dead wrong. Mr. Speaker, this is a quote from the Washington Post: ``A senior House GOP leadership aid said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA,'' that is the drug manufacturers, ``to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. Republicans favor a private sector solution to lowering drug costs, one that requires seniors to buy insurance for drugs from companies or through a managed care plan. Democrats want the benefit, drug benefit to be a part of Medicare, a change companies fear could drive down profits,'' Washington Post, June 18, 2002. In the midst of the Republicans marking up this so-called prescription drug plan for our seniors, first they had this crazy idea of coming up with a discount card like it was some new concept. They have been around for years. Seniors who have bought them know there is no real meaningful discounts to a discount card. When we created Medicare, thank God we did not say, here is a discount card, go cut a deal for your doctor visit or surgery. This should not be complicated. It is time for us to simply go into the pharmacy and get the medicine that our seniors need, just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. In the midst of the Republicans marking up, writing this prodrug manufacturer bill, they did take a break. They took a break long enough, and I am quoting here, and this is from The Washington Post, June 19: ``Pharmaceutical companies are among 21 donors paying a quarter of a million dollars each for red carpet treatment at tonight's GOP fundraising gala 2 days after Republicans unveiled a prescription drug plan the industry is backing, according to GOP officials.'' Again, Washington Post, June 19, 2002. I get angry when I look at statistics that tell me that PhRMA, the drug manufacturers, have over 600 lobbyists on Capitol Hill promoting their interests. Let me tell my colleagues what makes me angry about that. Pharmaceutical company profits are nearly four times the average of other Fortune 500 companies. The annual profit of the top 14 pharmaceutical companies is $38 billion, with a B, and the drug industries' effective tax rate is half that of other major industries. I could go on and on, but I will not. But let me say this. The next time we see one of those slick ads on TV trying to tell us which drug we need to tell our doctor you need, have my colleagues ever thought about that? The next time my colleagues see one of those ads, remember this: many drug manufacturers spend more money day in and day out, year after year, on those slick TV ads trying to sell their product than they do on research and development of drugs that can save lives and help all of us to live healthier lifestyles. Please, do not be confused by this ad campaign they are putting up trying to pass this prodrug manufacturer Republican bill. It is H.R. 4954. It is nothing more than a Band-Aid, at best. Our plan, the Democratic plan, the seniors' plan truly gives our seniors the ability to go to the doctor, to go to the hospital and, yes, to be able to go to the pharmacy and get the medicine that they so desperately need. We treat the prescription benefit just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. No gimmicks, no tricks. It is that simple. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), my friend and colleague, and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for coming over and spending the last hour with me as we talk about the differences, and that is what makes our democracy so great, that we are able to sit here in a democracy, stand here in a democracy in our Nation's capital and talk about the differences in the Democratic and Republican plan to offer a prescription drug benefit for seniors. I would just close by simply encouraging my colleagues to go back home to their districts this weekend, stop by as many local pharmacies as my colleagues want to, chain pharmacies, any kind of pharmacy they want to go to, does not matter if it is home-owned or if it is a chain, stop and talk to a pharmacist. I do not know if they are a Democrat or a Republican, show them what is included in the Republican plan, show them what is included in the Democratic plan, and every single time I can assure my colleagues they are going to tell them that the Republican plan must have been written by the big drug manufacturers and that the Democratic plan must have been written by our seniors. Do not take our word for it. Regardless of my colleagues' party affiliation, go talk to the hometown family pharmacist. Talk to the pharmacist. Ask them who is right on this issue.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, for the next hour I plan to visit with the Members of the United States House of Representatives, and other Members will be joining me throughout this hour, to talk about the need to truly modernize Medicare, to include medicine for our seniors. This is something that both parties have talked a lot about. They have talked about it for years. Yet we continue to live in a society where today's Medicare, if you really stop and think about it, is designed for yesterday's medical care. What I mean by that is I recently encountered an elderly woman in Glenwood, Arkansas, in my congressional district who is a retired pharmacist who just happened to have been a relief pharmacist at the pharmacy that my family used in Prescott, Arkansas, when I was a small child growing up there. She talked about how if she filled a prescription and it cost more than $5, she would go ahead and fill the next prescription while she tried to build up enough courage and confidence to go out and tell the patient that their medicine was going to cost $5. My, my, how times have changed. How times have changed and indeed today's Medicare really is designed for yesterday's medical care. I have stepped across the aisle and voted with my Republican Members probably as many times as any Democrat in this Chamber. So I think I can say with some credibility and with some respect that when it comes to the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, in my opinion the Republicans are dead wrong on this issue. This is coming from a conservative Democrat from south Arkansas, one who has crossed over that aisle and voted with the Republican Party numerous times over the past 17 months. The reason I know that their prescription drug plan is bad is because, you see, I understand this issue. I own a small-town family pharmacy. My wife is a pharmacist. I understand this issue. And I understand what our seniors need. They need an affordable, a voluntary, a guaranteed prescription drug benefit for all seniors. I am going to spend the next hour talking about the differences in the Republican plan and the Democrat plan, and I am proud to be one of four lead sponsors on the Democratic plan, one that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. But before I get into that, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing her thoughts with us on the prescription drug issue and for all that she does. Mr. Speaker, let me just visit for a moment about my experiences, not as a Member of the United States Congress, but as someone who is married to a pharmacist, who owns a small-town family pharmacy in our hometown of Prescott, Arkansas, a town of 3,400 people. Let me talk to you for a moment as a family pharmacy owner, someone who has experienced all of the trials and tribulations that our seniors go through day in and day out. I actively managed that business before coming to the United States Congress; and I can tell you, I can put faces and names with patients, but patient confidentiality, thank goodness, prevents that. But I can put faces to these stories in my own mind as I relay them today of seniors who would come into the pharmacy, who were literally forced to choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their rent, paying their light bill. We are talking about the Greatest Generation. We are talking about seniors who have given so much to this country, who supposedly live in the most industrialized society in the world, and yet we live in a society where they cannot afford their medicine or cannot afford to take it properly. Living in a small town, I would see seniors leave without their medicine; and living in a small town I would learn a week, 10 days later, where they are in the hospital in Hope, Arkansas, some 16 miles away from my hometown of Prescott, running up a $10,000 or $20,000 Medicare bill, or a diabetic who has to have a leg amputated, or a diabetic who has to have kidney dialysis, all things that Medicare pays for, and all things that could have been avoided; but they were not, because Medicare does not include medicine and our seniors simply could not afford the $40 or $50 prescription that could have saved the Medicare trust fund $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, as much as $250,000 for some kidney dialysis patients. Again, today's Medicare is designed for yesterday's medical care. And it is time we did right; it is time we did right, by our seniors. Some people say, well, the government cannot afford it. I say the government cannot afford not to, and here is what I mean by that. Health insurance companies are in the business to do what? Health insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. And then they cover the cost of medicine. Why? Because they know it helps hold down the cost of needless doctor visits, it helps to hold down the cost of needless hospital stays, it helps to hold down the cost of needless surgeries. It is time we truly modernized Medicare by creating a voluntary, but a guaranteed, Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. What I mean by that is this. Part A covers going to the hospital. Part B covers going to the doctor, medical equipment and so forth and so on. The part D that we are proposing would be voluntary, meaning if you are one of the few seniors in America who are fortunate to have medicine coverage from a previous employer, and, by the way, there are very few that fit that category in my congressional district, but if you are one of the few that have prescription drug coverage through a previous employer, one, you ought to count yourself lucky and fortunate, because very few seniors have any coverage at all. But if you fall in that category and like what you have, you ought to be able to keep it. That is why our plan is voluntary. But it is a guaranteed part of Medicare, just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. Now, the drug manufacturers do not like my plan. They do not want to be held accountable. I have got bottles of pills, medicine, tablets, capsules on the shelves of my small pharmacy back home in Prescott, Arkansas, that cost $3,000, that are being sold in Canada and Mexico for $300 or $400. I say this: if the governments in those small countries, Canada and Mexico, can stand up to the big drug manufacturers, why can we not do the same thing in the United States of America? We may have found the answer. The Washington Post, June 19, 2002: ``A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA, that is the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America, to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.'' I do not know about you, but I am appalled by that. This is the United States House of Representatives. We do not write legislation based on what is going to allow our party to raise money. At least I hope we do not. It is time we stood up to the big drug manufacturers and said enough is enough. It is reported that in the year 2000, $360 million was spent by the drug manufacturers on lobbying, advertising and political donations; and I say that is wrong. Do you ever see those ads on TV where they are trying to tell you which drug you need to tell your doctor you need? Have you ever thought about that? Slick TV ads put on the air by the drug manufacturers trying to tell you which drug you need to tell your doctor you need. Many drug manufacturers spent more money in the year 2000, the numbers are not out yet, but I am quite sure and confident it is the same for 2001. Many drug manufacturers spent more money marketing their products with these slick TV ads than they spent on research and development of drugs that can save lives and help all of us to live longer and healthier lifestyles. This 1-hour on prescription drugs for our seniors was supposed to occur tonight. Why is it occurring now? Because the leadership of this body chose to stop voting early today so they could make it to a fundraiser tonight that is being hosted by the big drug manufacturers at a time when these prescription drug bills that our seniors need and are counting on are being marked up, are being debated in the Committee on Ways and Means and in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Again, I am a conservative Democrat. I have crossed over that aisle and voted with the Republicans numerous times, as many as any Member of the United States Congress; but I can tell you when it comes to this issue, they are wrong. It is time for them to make a decision. Are they going to side, continue to side, with the big drug manufacturers, or are they going to join me in endorsing my bill that will truly modernize Medicare and include medicine for our seniors and start siding with our seniors, for our seniors? It is time that this Congress united in a bipartisan manner on the need to truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, just as we have united on this war against terrorism. Again, a senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that ``Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.'' This ought to be about suiting our seniors. It ought to be about giving our seniors a prescription drug benefit that means something. This debate should not in any form or fashion be about catering to the drug manufacturers. Let me talk to you about the differences between the Republican proposal for a Medicare prescription drug benefit and my proposal, the Democratic proposal, for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. A lot of people say, well, what about the guaranteed minimum benefit? The Republican proposal, beneficiaries, seniors, must obtain coverage through private insurers who may not participate, are not required to participate, and can offer vastly different benefits and premiums. In other words, the first step at trying to privatize Medicare. What does my proposal do, the Democratic proposal? Medicare covers prescription drugs like other Medicare benefits, with guaranteed benefits, premiums and cost-sharing for all beneficiaries. Not a complicated formula. We do not try to privatize Medicare. We simply say that going to the pharmacy and getting your medicine ought to be treated just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. It should be covered by Medicare. Some people say, what about guaranteed fair drug prices? Under the Republican plan for a prescription drug benefit, private insurers, again, privatizing Medicare, negotiate separately on behalf of sub-sets of the Medicare population, diminishing the program's group negotiating power. Believe me, there is nothing the drug manufacturers want more than to whittle this thing down into small groups. If we come at them with the entire Medicare population, they know we are going to demand the same kind of rebates that they provide the big HMOs and have for years. They know we are going to demand the same kind of rebates that State Medicaid programs, and, yes our Veterans Administration, gets. And why should we not? I am sick and tired of seeing our seniors in America subsidize the cost of health care in Canada and Mexico, and that is what we are doing. What does the Democrat proposal do? It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use the collective bargaining clout of all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate fair drug prices. These reduced prices will be passed on to beneficiaries. And, yes, it is time we demanded the same kind of rebates from the big drug manufacturers that the State Medicaid programs and big HMOs have been getting for years. Those rebates should go directly to the Medicare trust fund to help fund this Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. What about premiums? In the Republican plan, they will not put it on paper, but it is estimated to be $35 a month. In the Democratic plan, it is in writing. It is $25 a month. That is the premium that a senior would pay for this voluntary, but guaranteed, Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, should they choose to decide to sign up for it. The deductible. The Republican proposal is $250 a year; the Democratic proposal, $100 a year. Again, just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. Coinsurance. Get ready for this. The Republican proposal makes filling a tax return out look simple. It will be very difficult for most seniors without hiring a CPA to figure out exactly what it is they qualify for and when they qualify for it. The Republican plan calls for coinsurance of 20 percent for the first $1,000; 50 percent for the next $1,000; and 100 percent for all remaining spending up to $4,500 a year. And then something, we are not sure what, but something will kick in again. Now, think about that a minute. The first $1,000, you are going to pay 20 percent out of pocket. Once you hit that $1,000, it is going to 50 percent out of pocket. Once you have hit that second $1,000, they are going to make you pay 100 percent on all remaining spending until you hit $4,500 a year. I can tell you seniors who live in my district trying to get by from Social Security check to Social Security check that averages less than $600 a month with a $400-a-month drug bill, they will not ever get to the $4,500 because they simply cannot afford to pay for their medicine; and as a result, they are going without their medicine or they are not taking it properly. I recently had a senior tell me she did not know what she would do without her son, who is in his 50s. She said he had a good job. He had a job where he had health insurance. It just so happened that he took the same medicine that she did. It was about 3 bucks a pill, and there was no way she could afford it. So he would get the medicine filled and give it to her. He was going without his medicine so his mom could have her medicine. I can tell my colleagues story after story. I have driven 83,000 miles in the last 17 months in those 29 counties in South Arkansas and every day I am out there I hear numerous stories just like that about seniors who cannot afford their medicine or cannot afford to take it properly. So what does the Republican plan do? It says you are going to pay 20 percent on the first $1,000, and then for some reason, you are supposed to have more money as a senior on a fixed income so you should be able to afford to pay 50 percent on the next $1,000, and after that, you are on your own when you hit $4,500 and then we will be back and we will kick in some more. Folks, it is time we brought common sense to the United States Congress. This is not common sense. What does the Democratic proposal do? It is just like going to the doctor or going to the hospital: Twenty percent copayment, period. That is it. Out-of-pocket maximum. I mentioned the Republican out-of-pocket maximum is $4,500 a year. Again, most seniors in my district can never get to the first $4,500 because they cannot afford $4,500 in out-of- pocket before some kind of so-called Medicare prescription drug benefit kicks in. The out-of-pocket maximum on the Democratic plan is $2,000. And what that means is, every time you go to the pharmacy, well, first you are going to pay a $100 annual deductible. After you have met that, you are going to pay 20 percent of the cost of medicine; Medicare will pay 80 percent of the cost of medicine. If you have a $100 prescription, you are going to pay $20, instead of $100 like you are paying today. And once you have spent out of pocket $2,000, then Medicare kicks in and pays the full price. That is significant. And that will help our seniors who need help the most. Some people say, what about coverage gaps? The Republican proposal says this: Beneficiaries who need more than $2,000 worth of drugs must pay 100 percent out of pocket, but keep paying the premiums until they reach the $4,500 out-of-pocket cap. Again, our seniors cannot afford this. They will continue to do like many of them are doing today, and that is to go without their medicine, or not take it properly. What about coverage gaps in the Democratic plan, my plan? Beneficiaries always have coverage. There are no gaps. It is not more complicated to figure out than an IRS tax form. It is plain and simple, $25 a month annual premium, $100 annual deductible. After that, every time you go to the pharmacy, you pay 20 percent, Medicare pays 80 percent. And after you have been out $2,000 a year total, Medicare kicks in at 100 percent. Nothing complicated. You will not have to hire a CPA to figure it out. You will not wonder from month to month what you do and do not qualify for and what your copay will and will not be. It will always be the same. Again, it is structured just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital is under Medicare. Some ask about access to local pharmacies. I have to tell my colleagues, the Republican plan allows these private plans to limit which pharmacies participate in their network. There may be a senior that has used the same pharmacy for 60 years and, all of a sudden, under the Republican plan, you are going to be told that you have to use mail order, or that you have to use a pharmacy in another town or on the other end of town. Under my plan, the Democratic plan believes in providing you with the freedom to choose any pharmacy willing to play by the Medicare rules and accept the rate of reimbursement that is established, not by that pharmacy, but by Medicare, can participate, just like Medicare is with going to the doctor and going to the hospital. If those providers or doctors and hospitals agree to participate under the rules and regulations and fees set forth by Medicare, then you have the freedom to choose. The same thing here with the Democratic plan. Our plan does not tell you which pharmacy you must use. We let the senior decide. Some people say, what about access to prescribed medicines? Well, the Republican proposal says that private insurers can establish strict formularies and deny any coverage for all formulary drugs. Now, what does that mean? Well, I can tell my colleagues what it means. I have allergies and I have to take a nasal spray and my doctor wrote it for one brand. I got to the pharmacy to get it filled and they wanted to charge me a higher copay or deductible, copayment. They wanted to charge me a higher copayment if I stuck with the brand that I wanted, but if I would go to the preferred brand, my copayment would almost be cut in half, meaning my out-of-pocket would be cut almost in half. Well, I got to looking and, guess what? They wanted to switch me to a drug that as a pharmacy owner, it costs me $10 more. Now, why in the world would a health insurance company in the business of making a profit want to punish me for going with the cheaper drug and reward me for going with the higher priced drug? The answer, unfortunately, is quite simple. Because the rebates on the more expensive drug that that health insurance company is receiving from the drug manufacturer are so huge. We are going to continue to see that game played under the Republican proposal because, again, it creates formularies and if there is not a kickback being afforded on a drug to these private insurers, again, privatizing Medicare, then under their proposal, the drug your doctor wants you to have will not be covered. I am sick and tired of seeing health insurance companies, prescription benefit managers, accountants, bean counters, trying to play doctor. If the doctor says you need a particular drug, I think that is the drug you ought to get, and under the Democratic proposal, that is what happens. Beneficiaries have coverage for any drug their doctor prescribes, period. Under the Democratic proposal, whatever your doctor says you need is what you are going to get, not some complicated formulary based on who is kicking back to who how much, as the Republican proposal provides. Low-income protections. Under the Republican proposal, low-income beneficiaries may have to pay $2 or $5 as a copayment and 100 percent of costs in the coverage gap. Drugs may be denied if the beneficiary cannot afford this cost-sharing. Under my plan, the Democratic plan, here is what we say about low- income seniors. There is no cost-sharing or premiums. When I talked about paying a 20 percent copayment, when I talked about paying the premium of $25 a month, we waived that if you live up to 150 percent of poverty, and then there is a sliding scale for premiums phased in between 150 and 175 percent of poverty. So if you live in poverty, under the Democratic plan, you get your medicine, no 20 percent copay, no premium. Under the Republican plan, they are still going to require you to pay $2 or $5. Again, it is a complicated formula on what you have to do under one set of rules. These are huge differences, I say to my colleagues, between these two proposals. The Republican plan again caters to the big drug manufacturers. The Washington Post, June 19, 2002. A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. Again, as a conservative Democrat, I have crossed that aisle and I have voted with the Republican Members of this body as much as any Member of this Congress has done. When they are right, I will stand with them. As a small town family pharmacy owner, as someone who served on the State Senate public health committee for 8 years back home in Arkansas, as someone who has a 90-year-old grandmother back home who lives from Social Security check to Social Security check, I can tell my colleagues that when it comes to the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, they are dead wrong. You cannot side with the big drug manufacturers and still come down on the side of seniors. You have to choose. Now, the Republican national leadership decided we were going home early today so they could go get all dressed up for their big fund- raiser tonight that is being sponsored by these drug manufacturers while at the same time we are sitting here in the United States Congress simply asking for a hearing on our bill, a bill that I helped write, that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. And they are out wining and dining with the big drug manufacturers at a fund-raiser to benefit the Republican Party on the night following one of the most comprehensive hearings and markups to ever occur as it relates to the need to modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. Mr. Speaker, these bills are being debated and written as we speak in the House Committee on Ways and Means and in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I have to tell my colleagues, I am very disappointed to see this article today and to see what is going on in this Congress. This should not be about the drug manufacturers. It should be about standing up to the big drug manufacturers and standing with our seniors. It is not that complicated, and the Republican plan tries to complicate it. It is more complicated than filling out a tax return. Our seniors do not need any more complications in their lives. They do not need politics in their lives. They simply need a Medicare prescription drug benefit that allows them to get their medicine just like Medicare allows them to go to the doctor and to go to the hospital. I am very concerned about how this proposal by the Republicans privatizes Medicare. The Republican bill forces seniors to obtain coverage through private drug-only insurance plans or HMOs. It is not a true Medicare benefit like parts A or B where all seniors are guaranteed a defined set of benefits at a uniform price. Under their bill, there will be no universal Medicare-sponsored prescription drug plan. The Republican bill moves Medicare towards a defined contribution program with the ultimate goal of turning Medicare over to the private insurance market. I, for one, think that would be a huge mistake, and so do so many other senior organizations that have endorsed my bill that takes on the big drug manufacturers, that holds the big drug manufacturers accountable, and provides our seniors with a meaningful Medicare part D voluntary, but guaranteed, prescription drug benefit. However, do not just take my word for it. Listen to what others are saying. ``I'm very skeptical that `drug only' private plans would develop.'' That comes from Bill Gradison, former Republican Congressman and former president of the Health Insurance Association of America. States have tried to get the private insurers into the business of providing seniors with a prescription drug coverage. Who is going to buy the plans? Those who have the high drug bills. If one does not need drugs and is on a fixed income, one is not going to buy the plan. That is why the plan will not work. The premiums will exceed, if not cost as much as, the cost for the medicine. With regard to the proposal to rely on private drug entities for drug benefits, ``There is a risk of repeating the HMO experience.'' We all know the HMO experience did not work. They tried that. We have been there; we have done that. They are all getting out of the drug business, and they are all getting out of the Medicare business. That quote comes from John C. Rother, policy director of AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. With regard to whether private insurance plans would participate in the Republican Medicare drug plan: ``I don't think it's impossible, but the odds are against it.'' That is Richard A. Barasch, chairman of Universal American Financial Corporation of Rye Brook, New York, which sells MediGap coverage to 400,000 people. When asked if they favor being placed at financial risk, as the Republican plan requires, ``We are not enthusiastic about that approach,'' says Thomas M. Boudreau, senior vice president and general counsel of Express Scripts. With regard to their experience with accepting financial risk for providing drug benefits: ``We are typically paid a fee, generally less than $1, for each claim. But we do not bear financial risk.'' That is Blair Jackson, spokesman for AdvancePCS, one of the outfits that the Republican plan calls to help run this attempt at privatizing Medicare. I hope each and every Member of the United States Congress will put politics aside, read the Republican plan on modernizing Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, read my bill, the Democratic bill that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, and compare them. If they do that, I think they will agree with me that it is time for us to put politics aside. It is time for the Republicans to stop siding with the big drug manufacturers. Let us hope tonight's fundraiser that is hosted by the big drug manufacturers, that they do not belly up to the trough with the big drug manufacturers, trying to raise money in the middle of a debate on something so lifesaving and so important for our seniors. It is time for this Congress to unite behind the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, just as we have united on this war against terrorism. So I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: read my plan and read the Democratic plan. Read their plan. Then do what is right, not by the big drug manufacturers, but by our seniors. Again, from The Washington Post, look it up, June 19, 2002: ``A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. These same drug manufacturers are hosting a multi-million dollar fundraiser this very night for the Republican Party.'' That is from The Washington Post. I am appalled by that. It is time for the Republicans to make a choice. Are they going to continue to side with the big drug manufacturers, or are they going to side with our seniors? I encourage them to stretch across this aisle and endorse my bill, the Democratic bill, that gives the help to our seniors, America's Greatest Generation, that they so desperately need. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, maybe we can visit a little bit about this, because it is so important. I want to make sure we use every second of every minute that is afforded to us to visit here in the United States House of Representatives about an issue that literally, for many seniors, is life or death. It is just unfortunate to me that we have two proposals, one that sides with the big drug manufacturers, that being the Republican proposal, and one that sides with our seniors, that being the Democratic proposal. Why can this Congress not unite on the need to modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, just as we have united on the war against terrorism? I have tried to do that. It is H.R. 3626. The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a Republican, and I wrote a bill; and yet the Republican national leadership, they are in the majority, they decide what bills get a hearing, what bills get a vote in committee and on the floor. For months I have begged, I have pleaded for our bill, a bipartisan bill, to get a hearing and to get a vote. If the majority party, those who call the shots, decide what gets voted on and when, what gets heard in committee and when, if they really care about this issue, really care about helping our seniors, and if what their rhetoric is is more than just election-year politics, and it is really wanting to do the right thing and modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, why did they not let the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I get a hearing on that bill? Much of that bill is now incorporated into the Democratic proposal. I am a Democrat and my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, is a Democrat. But do not take our word for it. I challenge anyone to go to their hometown and visit their hometown pharmacist. Ask their pharmacist which proposal is best for America, which proposal is best for our seniors. Every single time they will tell us that the Democrats are right on this issue. They may tell us that the Democrats are not always right on every issue; but they will tell Members, according to the Gallop poll, the most trusted profession in America, pharmacist, and again, I am not one, my wife is, but they will tell us that on this issue the Democrats are right and the Republicans and the big drug manufacturers are dead wrong.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague for the last 17 months that I have had the privilege to serve and be a voice for the people of Arkansas' 4th Congressional District here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I have begged, I have pleaded, I have scratched, I have crawled to try and get a hearing on my first bill, H.R. 3626. I could not get a hearing on that. Now I am pleased to be one of four of the original lead sponsors on this new plan which incorporates much of what was in my earlier bill. It is like all we get from the other side of the aisle is a lot of games. We get a lot of games on the need to truly modernize Medicare, to include medicine for our seniors, and that is so unfortunate. First out of the chute was this idea that what our seniors needed was a discount prescription drug card, a discount card, like it was some new novel concept. My dad got one in the mail for free 6 months ago. A person can watch any cable TV program late at night and for $7.95 a month they can get one. Why do they want to push a discount card? Because any savings which averages 50 cents to $3 came at the expense of a hometown family pharmacy and did not cost the big drug manufacturers a dime. A senior that has $400 a month in drug costs and takes five prescriptions a month, even if they save $3 per prescription, which is the best some do with these so-called discount prescription drug cards, $3 a month savings, five prescriptions, that means on a $400 drug bill they would save $15 a month. That does not help a senior choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their light bill and paying their rent. Thank God when we created Medicare we did not say here is a discount card, go cut a deal at the local doctor or go cut a deal for whatever surgery someone needed. We provided them a meaningful health care benefit, and it is time we did the same when it comes to their medicine. I am pleased to be joined by another one of my colleagues here this evening, and at this time I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am not a pharmacist, a lot of people make that mistake, and I thank the gentleman for the compliment. But my wife is a pharmacist, and together we own a small town family pharmacy in my hometown of Prescott, Arkansas, my hometown of 3,400 people. That is why I am so passionate about the need for a truly modernized Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. Both sides of this aisle, Democrats and Republicans alike, have talked a lot about the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, and yet we continue to see no action. This should not be a bipartisan issue. It is time for this Congress to unite behind the need to truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, just as we have united in a bipartisan fashion on this war against terrorism. This is especially an important issue for me because, as a small town family pharmacy owner, I have seen seniors before coming to Congress. Day in and day out in that small town family pharmacy, I would see seniors who literally had to choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their utilities, and paying their rent. This is America, and we are talking about the greatest generation. I believe we can do better than that by our seniors. If we think about it, health insurance companies are in the business of making a profit. Yet, they cover the cost of prescription drugs. Why? Because they know it holds down the cost of needless doctor visits, the cost of needless hospital stays, the cost of needless surgeries. I do not believe anyone in this Congress has fairly or adequately put a pen to the paper and determined the true amount of savings that we will realize by providing our seniors with a prescription drug benefit. As I travel my district, and I have driven some 83,000 miles in my district listening to the needs of my constituents over the last 17 months, as I do that I hear story after story about senior after senior who is trying to get by on a $500 a month Social Security check, and yet faces a drug bill sometimes as high as $300 a month, sometimes as high as $400 a month, sometimes as much as $600, and yet, even $1,200 a month. I have had a senior tell me about how her son, who is in his 40s or 50s, has a drug benefit through his employer or health insurance to work, and they happen to take the same medicine, and he thinks he is healthier than his mom so he gets the medicine and gives it to her, which is going to cause him to have health problems. There are estimates that as much as $170 billion is wasted every year in our health care delivery system because people simply cannot afford to take their medicine, or cannot afford to take it properly. I was recently in a small town, Glenwood, Arkansas, in Pike County, and ran across a retired pharmacist, probably in her 80s. She just happened to have been a relief pharmacist at the pharmacy my parents used when I was a small child growing up in Prescott, Arkansas. She told me something that really stuck with me. She said, you know, back as recent as the 1970s I would fill a prescription, and if it cost in excess of $5, I would go ahead and fill the next person's prescription while I tried to get enough confidence built up to walk out there and let the patient know that it was going to cost $5. Now to see prescriptions that cost $100 is not uncommon. The bottom line is this: Today's Medicare was designed for yesterday's medical care. Today's Medicare was designed for yesterday's medical care. There has been a lot of debate and a lot of talk about how we do this, how we provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit to our seniors. The Republicans first offered a plan that simply provided a discount card, like it was some kind of new concept. Prescription discount cards have been around forever. Watch any cable TV channel late at night and you will see them advertised for $7.95 a month. My dad got one in the mail a few months ago for free. Why is that? Because the prescription benefit managers, which play a huge role in the Republican plan, do what? They make huge profits off the rebates, profits that exceed those that are made by the hometown family pharmacy. That is why they give us these cards for free, because they get rebates on the preferred drugs that are included. Where the discounts come from, they do not cost the big drug manufacturers a single dime. Studies show that the savings range from 50 cents to $3. If a senior who faces a $500 a month prescription drug bill is taking six medications a month, let us say they can save $3 per prescription, that is a total savings of $18 a month, $18 savings on a $500 drug bill. That does not help our seniors choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their light bill, and paying their rent. Thank God that when we created Medicare, we did not say, here is a discount card, go cut a deal for your surgery. Here is a discount card, go cut a deal at the doctor's office. We provided a meaningful benefit under Medicare. We provided meaningful health insurance for our seniors. It is time that we do the right thing by all seniors by providing a voluntary but a guaranteed prescription drug benefit that is just like going to the doctor or just like going to the hospital. The big drug manufacturers, they are not going to like the Democratic prescription drug plan. Why? Because we have the courage to take on the big drug manufacturers. Some studies show that $360 million was spent by the big drug manufacturers in the year 2000 on political donations, lobbying, and advertising. In fact, some drug manufacturers as recently as last year spent more money on TV ads marketing their products than they did on research and development. The ads that come on TV and look real fancy, and they try to tell us which drug we need to tell our doctor we need, have Members ever thought about that? It is time that we held the big drug manufacturers accountable. It is time we stood up to them and said, enough is enough. If governments, small governments like Canada and Mexico, can stand up to the big drug manufacturers and demand lower prices, why cannot we? It is time we developed a plan that takes on the big drug manufacturers. Why? Because 83 cents out of every dollar that we spend on a prescription drug is 83 cents that is a result of the cost of the big drug manufacturer. Seventeen cents out of every dollar that we pay for a prescription drug is the cost that it takes for the hometown family pharmacy to do business: to fill that prescription, to buy liability insurance, to pay their utilities, and yes, oftentimes to deliver that medicine to the front door, because the patient is a senior who can no longer get out, a senior who can no longer travel, a senior who lives in a town like Prescott, Arkansas, where I am from, where we do not have mass transit. This is a very important issue. It is important to our seniors, and it ought to be important to every one of us, because some day all of us will be on Medicare, and we, too, will want to have a meaningful prescription drug benefit. This is a very, very important issue to our seniors. I hope it is an important issue to all of us. I look forward to continuing to discuss the need to truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors as this debate continues. If another day passes without our seniors getting a prescription drug benefit, that is one day too many.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I wrote a bill. It is H.R. 3626. It is a bill that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. In that bill we hold the big drug manufacturers accountable. In that bill we demand the same kind of rebates from the big drug manufacturers that State Medicaid programs, that the Veterans Administration and that big HMOs have been demanding for years. And we do that because it is time that we held the big drug manufacturers accountable, and we can do that in a way that State Medicaid programs do it, a way that most privately held health insurance companies do it, the way most big HMOs do it, by demanding the same kind of rebates that they receive to help offset the cost for a meaningful drug benefit for our seniors. Let me say this. Those who know me know I am a Democrat, I am a conservative Democrat, and I probably cross party lines and vote with the Republicans just about as much as anybody on the Democratic side. And when they are right, I stand with them. But I can tell you, I am a small-town family pharmacy owner. I understand this issue, and they are dead wrong with this issue. First, they come up with this crazy idea of a prescription discount drug card. Again, they have been around forever. Seniors have paid for them. They have gone to their pharmacy. They have learned there is no meaningful savings to a so-called prescription drug card. And thank God when we created Medicare, we did not say, here is a discount card to go to the doctor and go to the hospital with. Now apparently they will come with a program where they will cover this much of your drug bill if you make this much money. And they will cover this much of your drug bill if you make this much money. And it is so complicated that every senior is going to need to hire a CPA to figure out what their income is that month to figure out what benefit they qualify for. This does not have to be complicated. A Medicare benefit that allows you to go to the doctor and that allows you to go to the hospital is not complicated. Everyone understands it. And it benefits those seniors who need it.

Mr. ROSS. If the gentleman will yield further, I will tell him that as a small town family pharmacy owner, I cannot tell him the countless stories, and I can put faces to these stories and names to these stories but patient confidentiality prevents me from doing that, thank goodness, but I can tell the gentleman, faces stick in my mind of seniors who cannot afford their medicine. I live in a small town of 3,400 people. Before coming to Congress, when I was actively involved in the management of our small town family pharmacy, I would see seniors who could not afford their medicine. They would leave the pharmacy without it, and a week or 10 days later we would learn, because it is a small town, that they were 16 miles down the road in Hope, Arkansas in the hospital running up a $10,000 or $20,000 hospital Medicare bill that could have been avoidable, could have been avoided had they simply been able to afford their medicine or been able to afford to take it properly. Diabetics, I have seen diabetics that lose legs needlessly simply because they could not afford their medicine. Do Members know what it costs to amputate a leg? Do Members know the drain that has on the Medicare system and on a senior who no longer has a leg simply because they could not afford their medicine, or kidney dialysis? Medicare pays for kidney dialysis. If you cannot afford the medicine, Medicare says that is okay. We will pay for kidney dialysis. As much as a quarter of a million dollars Medicare will pay out. But no, they will not pay for the $40 or $50 or $60 prescription that the senior needed to avoid that horrible, horrible experience that in many cases eventually had a great role to play in their eventual death.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just tell the gentleman that I think this is a good example of why we need an overhaul in Medicare, why today's Medicare is designed for yesterday's medical care. There are very few drugs, few drugs that Medicare pays for. One is when one has a kidney transplant. They will pay for drugs that keeps one from rejecting that kidney for up to 3 years. Here is what Medicare says today. They say, if you go to the doctor because you are ill, they will pay for it. If that doctor determines that you are ill because you need a new kidney, they will pay for the transplant and the hospital stay. Then they say they will pay for the medicine up to 36 months, 3 years, to keep you from rejecting that kidney. In month 37, do Members know what Medicare says? Under today's rules and regulations, they say, I'm sorry if you cannot afford the medicine, which can cost more than $500 a month to keep one from rejecting that kidney, we are sorry but we cannot pay for that anymore. But here is what can be done: Let your body reject that kidney, and we will pay for you to go back to the doctor, we will pay for you to go back to the hospital, we will pay for you to have another surgery, we will pay for you to have another kidney transplant, and then we will cover the medicine for another 3 years, another 36 months. Again, that is just one example of how Medicare today does not make sense. Again, today's Medicare is designed for yesterday's medical care.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Robert ``Bobby'' Hargraves, a distinguished Arkansan, attorney, and life-long Democrat who died on June 1st at the young age of 55. Bobby's notable career in law began after he graduated from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1973. He then moved to Hot Springs with his wife, Joanie, to begin a 29-year law practice. In those 29 years, he has served as an Arkansas Bar Examiner and has twice served as a Special Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, in addition to serving as a special Circuit Judge and Chancery Judge. But Bobby did much more for his community than uphold and defend the law; he was an exemplary citizen who cared a great deal for children, and he focused much of his work to better their lives and their futures. He served as Garland County's first Juvenile Referee and President of the Arkansas Juvenile Judges Association. He established the juvenile justice program in Hot Springs, and he founded the Ouachita Children's Center dedicated to providing emergency shelter and support services for abused, neglected, and troubled youth. Bobby was an avid gardener and outdoorsman, a devoted family man and member of the Episcopal Church, and a pillar in the Hot Springs community. He was a close, personal friend of President Bill Clinton. I know this is a difficult time for Bobby's wife, Joanie, their sons, Lucas and Jacob, his mother, Jean, his brother and two sisters, and all of his many friends and relatives whom he loved dearly. I am keeping all of them in my thoughts and prayers. While Bobby Hargraves may no longer be with us, his spirit and his legacy live on in the many lives of those he touched.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a young woman and colleague of mine, a pharmacy technician from Lavaca, Arkansas, along with her husband, Jim, and three-year-old daughter, Shea Nicole, who lost their lives in the Interstate 40 bridge collapse on May 26, 2002. Misty Johnson was only 28 when she was so tragically killed, but in those 28 years she brightened the lives of friends, family, even her customers at Rose Drug Store in Paris, Arkansas. Her coworkers say Misty was fun to work with, always on time, and always ready to work hard. Six years ago, she married Jim, her high school sweetheart. Their friends say no one can remember either of them having dated anyone but each other. Jim worked as a route sales representative for Wonder Bread, and started work at 3 am. He had to go to bed earlier than the rest of his family, and he made sure he kissed his daughter Shea every night before doing so. The two lived for their young daughter and always put her first in their lives. In fact, they were headed to Tulsa for a day at the zoo when their lives were unexpectedly taken. My heart goes out to Misty's and Jim's parents, Hursel and Linda Henson and Juanita Brown Johnson, and their families. I know this is an extremely difficult time for them, and for all families who lost loved ones on that terrible day, and I keep them in my thoughts and prayers. While Misty, Jim, and Shea are no longer with us, their spirit lives on, in the lives of all those they touched.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary Arkansan, a great inventor, engineer, and scientist, who left his mark not only on my district, but on our nation's history as well. His name was Paul Wilbur Klipsch. Paul Klipsch was well known for many things, but was best known for his contributions in revolutionizing the world of audio. From a very young age, he became fascinated with acoustics and radio, and even built his own radio receiver a year before the first public radio broadcast. That fascination would follow him the rest of his life. His career began in 1926 after graduating from New Mexico State University with a degree in Electrical Engineering, when he was employed by General Electric to work with radio. He went on to earn his Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, continuing research in audio frequency and efficiency. After serving in World War II, Paul decided to dedicate his life to building loudspeakers, determined to achieve accurate sound reproduction. From his home in Hope, Arkansas, he spent years researching and conducting experiments, and much of his work was patented. In his lifetime, Klipsch was granted three patents in ballistics, eight in geophysics, and twelve in acoustics. His Heritage Line of speakers are known worldwide for their quality and accuracy that set industry standards. In fact, I enjoy using them in my own home Paul Klipsch received numerous awards during his lifetime. He has had buildings, lecture halls, and auditoriums named in his honor. Perhaps his most distinguished honor came in 1997, when he was inducted and enshrined in the Engineering and Science Hall of Fame joining members like Thomas Edison, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers. He was recognized as a visionary for improving the quality of life for all humanity. The same can be said for both his professional and personal life. An avid philanthropist, Klipsch spent his 98 years on this Earth trying to better the lives of his neighbors. He always gave credit to Divine Guidance, and invoked it frequently. He has been described as raw, eccentric, straightforward, controversial, fascinating, whimsical, and extraordinary. My heart goes out to Paul's wife of nearly 26 years, Valerie, their son, Raymond, and their two grandchildren as they deal with this difficult loss, and I am keeping all of them in my thoughts and prayers. While he may no longer be with us, his life and legacy will be remembered for generations to come.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honor of sharing with you a touching tribute to the victims of the September 11th attacks, to our Nation, and to our legacy of freedom. I was visited recently by a gentleman from my hometown, Leo Smith. Leo is a graduate of the University of Central Arkansas and works as a safety manager at a plant in Hope, Arkansas. In his profession, he is concerned with protecting the lives of his coworkers, but after September 11th , he was concerned with the lives of many more. We have all chosen our own method to deal with the tragedy of the attacks on our Nation. Leo chose to express his anger, helplessness, and also his pride through a poem entitled ``Let Freedom Ring.'' Leo thoughtfully presented me a copy of this poem, and I was very moved upon reading it. In his poem, Leo recognizes that ``the land of the free will never be the same again, not for you or for me.'' The poem identifies the transformation of our country, the loss, but also the gain of something new. Leo knew that the attacks signified the start of a war to defend freedom, but the sudden display of patriotism, the tribute to those who have died throughout our nation's history to defend that nation, in his own words, ``Let me know the battle has already been won.'' It is with pride and gratitude that I share with you and submit to the Congressional Record Leo Smith's poetic eulogy to the victims of the attacks. His words lament the loss we all felt that day, but express the hope that soon followed. As he puts it, What will happen next? The answer to this only God knows. But on that Tuesday, September 11th, Was born a new breed of heroes. Let Freedom Ring (By Leo Smith) America the Beautiful, the land of the free, will never be the same again, Not for you or for me. Tragedy struck quickly, It rocked the entire world, Changing many of today's families, To widows and little orphan boys and girls. Pictures of blood shed and destruction, On television night after night, People filled with compassion, Hearts filled with fright. What will happen next? The answer to this only, God knows, But on that Tuesday, September 11th, Was born a new breed of heroes. Everyone who helped was a hero, Giving blood or looking through the rubble, Or just saying a prayer for the victims, Or just telling your someone that you lov'em. Our nation, one people, all helping for the cause, Made tears come to my eyes, And me to take a long pause. Red, white and blue forever, U.S. flags flying everywhere as far as the eye can see, Respecting the battles of our fore fathers, Who fought and died for us to be free. All our people pulling together, Let me know the battle has already been won, All races uniting and bonding, We are all one nation, just one. No matter how many buildings are destroyed, And all the destruction that others can bring, The United States will always rise to the top, All Americans unite, and Let Freedom Ring.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished constituent and colleague, a leader in the pharmacy profession, who passed away earlier this year just two weeks shy of his 96th birthday, Mr. Willard B. Simmons. Mr. Simmons' 96 years in this world were spent serving his profession, his community, and his family. Simmons was born in Myrtis, Louisiana, on February 22, 1906. His father, Hardy A. Simmons, Sr., was a pharmacist who owned his own drugstore, a profession the younger Simmons chose to follow. He graduated from the Little Rock College of Pharmacy in 1924 and was licensed to practice in both Arkansas and Texas. He worked in his father's pharmacy in Bloomburg, Texas, for several years, and then the two formed a partnership and bought a store in Texarkana, naming it the Modern Simmons Drug Company. In his career, Simmons assumed a position of leadership on committees in the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, serving three times as president of the Texarkana Retail Druggists Association. He served as vice president of the Arkansas Pharmaceutical Association and was a two-time president of the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce. Willard Simmons is best remembered for his work as executive secretary and general manager of the National Association of Retail Druggists (NARD), the former namesake of National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA). He assumed this role in 1961, and over the course of his tenure, helped the association overcome many challenges facing the pharmacy industry in the 1960's and early 1970's. Simmons also left his mark on our Nation's Capital. He established both the NARD annual legislative conference in Washington and the NARD Political Action Committee, with its motto ``Get Into Politics or Get Out of Pharmacy.'' Simmons seemed to live that motto and became personal friends with then Representatives Wright Patman and Jake Pickle, as well as former President Lyndon B. Johnson. He was a frequent visitor to the White House and was responsible for extending the association's lobbying efforts throughout Washington. His work influenced legislation and fair trade issues affecting not only the pharmaceutical industry, but small businesses just like his across the Nation. The NCPA has fittingly recognized Willard Simmons' outstanding career and exemplary life by establishing the Willard B. Simmons Independent Pharmacist of the Year award, which recognizes an independent pharmacist for exemplary leadership and commitment to independent pharmacy and to the community. While Willard Simmons may no longer be with us, his legacy and spirit will live on in all whose lives he touched. I wish to extend my continued sympathies to his wife, Eloise, his son Willard, Jr., his granddaughter, Savannah, his brother and sisters, Hardy Simmons, Dorothy Simmons, and Mary Blizzard, and all his family and friends. They can take great pride in his lifetime of accomplishment and service to the pharmacy profession and his fellow citizens.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding to me, one of the co-chairs of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. We have heard a lot of talk tonight about the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. We are a group of 33 fiscally conservative Democrats that believe we ought to get our government, its budget, and our debt under control. We are a group that is sick and tired of all the partisan bickering that goes on at our Nation's Capitol. It should not be about what makes the Democrats look good or bad or the Republicans look good or bad; it ought to be about doing right by the people who sent us to the Nation's Capitol to be their voice in government. About this time last year, there was a lot of debate going on in this very Chamber about a surplus, a surplus that was projected to exceed $5 trillion over the next 10 years. Back last year when we stood here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and talked about this projected $5 trillion surplus, the Blue Dogs tried to bring some fiscal responsibility to this Chamber and to the floor of the United States House of Representatives. As that debate was going on, I voted against the Democratic budget last year. I voted against the Republican budget. I am trying to be bipartisan here. The Blue Dogs developed their own budget, and back in the days when we thought we had a surplus, when we were told that we had a surplus of $5 trillion over the next 10 years, here is what the Blue Dogs had to say about it 1 year ago. We said that we ought to take that surplus and take 50 percent of it and pay down our Nation's debt, that we should take 25 percent of it and provide a tax cut for working families and those who need it the most, and take the remaining 25 percent and do things like truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, strengthen our national defense, something we were talking about way before September 11 ever happened. Of course, the Blue Dog budget failed. It did not pass. We passed a budget, or this Chamber passed a budget, without my vote, and now we have another budget before us this year which I voted against, a budget where in less than a year we went from talking about a $5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years to a budget for fiscal year 2003 that some say will cause us to deficit spend $80 billion, on the conservative side, and some say we will deficit spend to the tune of $120 billion. Throughout the debate last year, we were told we had a surplus but it will not materialize. Rather, for the first time since 1997, this year's budget, fiscal year 2003, will put us back in the days of deficit spending for the first time since 1997. But when they were talking about that supposed surplus last year, we did not hear a lot of talk about the debt, a 5.9 trillion national debt. Some people think we spend too much money in this country on food stamps. That is a couple of billion dollars a month. Some people in this country think we spend too much on foreign aid. That is $1 billion a month. Mr. Speaker, we spend $1 billion every single day in America simply paying interest, not principal but interest, on the national debt. How much is $1 billion? I put that number in my calculator and I get that little ``e'' at the end. What does it mean to us in our everyday lives? I will tell the Members what it means. One billion dollars can build 200 brand new elementary schools every single day in America. The $1 billion we are paying every day in interest on the national debt can complete important infrastructure projects. In my congressional district, in the southern half of Arkansas, I have three interstates pending right now. There is Interstate 49. Give me a day and a half of the interest that we are now paying on the national debt and I can complete Interstate 49. Give me about a week of it and I can complete Interstate 69. Give me a few hours of it and I can complete Interstate 530. These are projects that are vital to provide economic opportunities for people from all walks of life. That is what this debt means to us in our every-day lives, and the drain it is having on being able to do things like truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. Medicare is the only health insurance plan I know of that does not include medicine, yet it is the plan that nearly every single senior citizen relies on day in and day out to stay healthy and to get well. My grandparents left this country just a little bit better off than they found it for my parents. And my parents have left this country just a little bit better off than they found it for my generation. But I wonder, is this Congress, is this Government, is our generation going to leave this country just a little bit better off than we found it for the next generation, our children and our grandchildren? Social Security is another issue that involves the debt. We have borrowed, our Government has borrowed $1 trillion from the Social Security trust fund with no provision on how it ever gets paid back. When you and I go to the bank to borrow money for a car or a home, what do the bankers ask you? They want to know how are you going to pay that money back. How much can you pay a month? How many years will you take to pay it back? And yet our Government has raided Social Security trust funds to the tune of over $1 trillion with no provision on how that gets paid back. And guess what? If we figure out how it does get paid back, Social Security as we know it today is still broke in 2041. So our response to all this is simple. On Thursday, April 25, the Democratic Blue Dog coalition, 33 fiscally conservative Democrats, outlined four principles to prevent our children and grandchildren from being stuck with the burdens that our country is accumulating today because of our generation's budget decisions. We call these four principals the ABCs of fiscal discipline. A, assure honesty and accountability; B, balancing the budget without raiding Social Security; C, climbing out of the deficit ditch; and D, defending children from paying our bills. The ABCs of fiscal discipline say we need enforceable budget constraints that will expose deceptive budget practices and provide our guardrail to keep our spending within the government's means. It says we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that requires us to balance that budget every single year, an amendment that could only be waived in extraordinary times such as a war or military conflict, and that takes Social Security completely off the table. It will stop the politicians in Washington from raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust fund. I served for 10 years in the Arkansas State Senate. Our Constitution required us to have a balanced budget, and for my 10 years there I took my experience as a small business owner to our State capital, and for 10 years I helped balance that State budget. If we can do it at the State level, if we can do it at the small town family pharmacy that my wife and I own in Prescott, Arkansas, then, yes, the United States government can do it as well. It says that if we have to raise the limits on our national debt that we do so with a plan that will put our fiscal house back in order, just like a family facing financial hardships works to get approval to refinance their debts. And, finally, it says that Congress must have a super majority, a three-fifths majority vote to approve additional government borrowing. We believe following the ABCs of fiscal discipline is the right thing to do for this Congress, for our Nation, and for the future of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, Sammy Angel is no stranger to public service in Arkansas's Chicot County located in the Arkansas Delta. He served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1994-2000 and represented his constituency well. Sammy is a true leader and a man of action. When a project arises in his community, Sammy is always one of the first people to begin planning and organizing the steps that will be needed to successfully complete the project at hand. When his community of Lake Village recognized the need for a new fire station, Sammy went to work. Because Sammy is a man of action, he did more than have conversations, make phone calls, and write letters to broaden support for the needed project, he also began the very hard task of raising funds for the newly proposed fire station. He worked hard to find financial support, and, after countless hours, Sammy Angel had raised $150,000 towards the new fire station that will save numerous homes and lives during its years of operation. To the people of Lake Village and the rest of our state, Sammy Angel is known as a truly selfless public servant. On Thursday, April 25, 2002, they will be dedicating their new fire station, the Lake Village Fire Station No. 2, in his name, a fitting honor for a man who worked so hard to see it built. Sammy is an inspiration to those around him, and I am privileged to call him a friend and even more honored to serve as his Representative in the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincerest congratulations to him on this distinguished honor and to the entire Lake Village community on the dedication of this new fire station.