Ginny Brown-Waite

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding. Coming from Florida, we obviously have a large number of seniors; and particularly in my district, we do not have wealthy seniors. The interim prescription drug card that is available, that began to become available yesterday, is a great benefit for so many of my constituents. A lot of times there is a great fear of the unknown, and I think it is exactly what happened. I think that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Democrat Party had so frightened seniors that these cards were not going to be sufficient and that sufficient savings were not going to take place. I have heard very positive comments from seniors in my district that the Web site is easy to navigate on. I actually, like you, also called Medicare because I wanted to make sure that there was not a big backlog or a long waiting period before you got a real person on the line, and that absolutely is not the fact. It is a very efficient system. There are operators standing by, and that number again is 1-800-MEDICARE, and you simply tell them your ZIP code and the number of prescriptions that you are taking now, and they will help you to navigate through which card is best for you. I think it is important that Americans realize that, first of all, this is a voluntary prescription drug plan. It is not mandatory. When one looks at the prescription drug cards, certainly it is not a one-size-fits-all scenario, nor should it be. Many people in my district have Tricare for life and/or they have retirement benefits from when they were employed, and they are happy with those. We want them to keep them. That is very important. I know that I worked with the two gentlemen here this evening, one from Georgia and the other from New Mexico, to make sure that we encouraged employers to continue to offer those benefits. How do we encourage them, with a tax-free subsidy. I believe that the number of employers who will stop health care coverage to retirees, that the number of those that will stop will severely dwindle. I recently had a constituent come to me, and I am originally from New York. He had worked for a major power company there. He was so afraid that they were going to drop their coverage. Well, I called the power company for him as I told him I would do, and asked them exactly what their plans were, and explained the 28-cent subsidy tax free that they will receive. They have looked at the tax- free subsidy, they have no intention of dropping their coverage, and the constituent is very happy to know that the company that he had spent well over 35 years working for is going to continue the retiree coverage. As we worked on this bill, I know to many of us that was a very important factor. I also visited the Web site, and here are a few examples of what I found on the Web site. For example, Lipitor, a common drug used to curb high cholesterol, according to the Medicare Web site, 17 Medicare discount cards are available to constituents living in, for example, Brooksville in my district, who take Lipitor. Most of the cards are accepted at over 8 different pharmacies within a 10-mile radius. Today, for example, seniors living in Dade City, Florida, are paying up to $87 for a 30-day supply of Lipitor. However, beginning in June, some of the cards will offer a 30-day supply for as low as $67. Many of the cards have no enrollment fee. That is a savings of $20 a month. Another very common drug is Zyrtec, which is taken for allergies. Seniors in Crystal River are paying $86. According to the Medicare.gov line, one prescription discount card will only charge $58 a month for Zyrtec with no enrollment fee, and that means a $28 a month savings. There are many other examples of some of the other prescription drugs that also have savings, and I added some of them up. For example, Zyrtec, Lipitor, and Prevacid, which is used for acid reflux disease, the Prevacid, they actually will save $50 a month on by using the prescription drug cards. When we add all of this up, that is a savings of $350 a year, and that is if they are not low income. It is $350 this year, and $700 in 2005, and that is just for one prescription. If a senior took all three of these, they would save almost $600 this year. When you combine 2004 with 2005, it would be $1,100. That is why I absolutely cannot understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supposed to be so concerned about the poor in our Nation have absolutely no concept of the benefits that this prescription drug bill will bring to every constituent. As I went around in my district when we were off during April, I had many town hall meetings, and there were some things I said to people who said I do not need the plan, I have a great plan or I am on Tricare, I am covered for life, I am fine, no thank you. I said to them, well, for your friends and neighbors or maybe later in life you decide this is a good plan for you, but there are some great benefits in there for those on Medicare. For example, they will have a Welcome to Medicare physical exam that never before has been available. There was scheduled by a previous Congress, not one that any of the three of us belonged to, but there was scheduled to be a Medicare home health copay. That copay for home health care, which is so necessary when someone comes out of a hospital setting, and they are coming out of hospitals a whole lot sooner now, and they go to the home, and having home health care is such a blessing because it helps them to be in their home where they will recuperate better and also have medical supervision. There was a copay scheduled to be to go into effect. The copay scheduled has been scrapped by the Medicare Modernization Act. Additionally, there was a $1,500 physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy cap, a total of $1,500 a year for all the therapies. If you broke your wrist, $1,500 worth of therapy might be okay; but Lord, if you have a stroke, you need all three of those therapies. You need physical, occupational and speech therapy, and $1,500 was just the tip of the iceberg for the needs of those who had had a stroke. We eliminated that very arbitrary and cruel $1,500 therapy cap which another session of Congress had imposed. Additionally, doctor reimbursement. Physician reimbursement was scheduled to be cut by 4.5 percent. I was hearing, as were many of my colleagues in Congress, hearing that doctors were going to withdraw from Medicare because they had an unusual phenomenon of their Medicare reimbursement was going down and their expenses were going up, certainly including malpractice insurance. Those two storms, if you will, of rising costs and lower reimbursement were a problem on the horizon that this bill took care of. We did not cut physician reimbursement, we actually increased it by 1.5 percent so physicians are staying in the Medicare program. With so many seniors in Florida, it is so important that we have adequate physicians, and it is funny the gentleman should mention the HMOs. In my area, so many of my constituents love HMOs. I actually was at an event last night in Lake County, and she said to me, What are you going to do to get some HMOs here? They had lived in another county that had a lot of HMOs, and she really appreciated HMOs and wanted to know when we were going to have an HMO in Lake County. I explained that is not something that the government mandates, but here is an example of somebody who is very happy with an HMO, and I have heard that from many of my constituents. But for those who live in counties where HMOs are, this bill also increased the reimbursement to HMOs and mandated that they either increase the benefits to those subscribers who are in HMOs or that they cut the costs. In my area, in the Tampa Bay area, we have a variety. Some added services, and others cut the monthly subscription fee. So many people are very glad that the HMOs are being adequately reimbursed in this bill for those who love the HMO concept.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly this evening on the House budget and the House budget resolution. It is a responsible budget that has a proper balancing of national priorities. However, Congress cannot get a control on government spending and reduce the deficit unless we find a way to combat waste. We right now are spending $69,000 per second. The 2005 House budget seeks to weed out waste, fraud and abuse, and builds on our successes of 2004. Last year the Committee on the Budget, which I am very proud to serve on, began an effort to identify the most blatant examples of waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal mandatory programs. One year later, we know with certainty that we have not even scratched the surface. For example, the Inspector General of the Department of Education found that States are not complying with the Federal regulations for distributing IDEA funds to local agencies. In a review of six States, half were not complying. Many local education agencies were receiving an incorrect allocation. Some were underfunded by as much as $600,000 and some overfunded by more than $800,000. The budget that we passed also provides for the permanent extension of the President's tax cuts, the marriage penalty on which we voted earlier, the death tax, and also the child tax credit. Included in the House budget which we passed was language that I had suggested, suggesting the importance of regulatory inform. Let me briefly quote from the budget resolution: ``It is the sense of the House that Congress should establish a mechanism for reviewing Federal agencies and their regulations with the express purpose of making recommendations to Congress when agencies prove to be inefficient, duplicative, outdated, irrelevant, or fail to accomplish their intended purpose.'' Some would think that we could do away with half of the Federal bureaucracy with that description. To continue with the language that is in the budget: ``It is an economic reality that unnecessary and ineffective regulations discourage investment and run counter to a holistic vision of growth. They increase prices for consumers, and they suppress job creation. Making agencies more accountable to Congress and the American taxpayer will lead to more efficient practices and less waste.'' Based on these findings, I have introduced legislation to reduce wasteful government bureaucracy. It is actually called the JAPC bill, or the Joint Administrative Procedures bill, and it is House Resolution 3356. I introduced it because during my term as a State Senator I had the privilege of serving on the Florida JAPC commission. It is a bipartisan commission made up of House and Senate members who were charged with the responsibility and the authority of reviewing agency rulemaking. Our State knew that excessive paperwork and burdensome regulations thwarted economic growth and global competitiveness. The accountability will lead to far more efficient practices and much less waste. The JAPC Act that I introduced is very similar because it establishes a bicameral committee modeled after the Florida system to review agency rules. It also builds on the success of the Congressional Review Act, which was implemented in 1996 as part of the Contract With America. Mr. Speaker, it has been estimated that Americans pay more than $700 billion a year to comply with regulatory burdens, and that is more than $8,000 per household. I believe that it is time to put the brakes on this unnecessary and ineffective runaway system of regulations that we have. I hope that Democrats, like the gentleman running for President, will embrace regulatory reform and eliminate this burden from the American economy and the taxpayer before they seek out new ways to raise our taxes.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hernando County Sheriff's Office and the Brooksville City Police Department for their commitment to maintaining law and order while safeguarding county residents. Hernando County has grown tremendously. It is regarded as one of the fastest growing counties in the nation with a population that has increased 330 percent since 1980. This growth has presented new challenges to our local law enforcement agencies. Thanks to the leadership and commitment of Sheriff Nugent and Police Chief Boyce, Hernando County continues to be provided effective and professional law enforcement. I would like to recognize the bravery and selflessness of the fine individuals who wear the badge as this week marks Hernando County Law Enforcement Appreciation Week. These fine individuals who serve in law enforcement are an exceptional breed. They serve in the line of fire to protect us from harm's way and ask for little in return. The brave men and women of Hernando County law enforcement have more than earned our gratitude and whole hearted support. I am so very proud of our local sheriffs and police and happily thank them for their service and dedication to the county's safety. The residents of Hernando County and I are indebted to them.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today seeking answers to very tough questions. Like many Americans, I have been following the 9/11 Commission hearings with very keen interest. As an American, I want to know how the terrorists infiltrated our borders without detection, and, as a Congresswoman, I have a responsibility to implement policies that protect our country. I view this duty as one of my most urgent and most sacred obligations. At the outset, let me be clear: I do not seek to blame anyone for 9/ 11, not anyone but the terrorists and their evil supporters. However, I do want to know what happened and what our government can do to make sure that attacks like those on 9/11 never happen again. Therefore, like millions of others, I am eagerly awaiting the report from the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, and to my disappointment, during the hearings last week it became clear that Americans may not be able to get the complete and honest picture that we deserve. Let me explain what I mean. Last week, under oath, Attorney General John Ashcroft introduced a recently declassified memo by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick regarding the now familiar wall separating the Federal agencies from intelligence agencies. For her part, Ms. Gorelick responded to these charges in an editorial in the Washington Post. However, many tough questions still remain. Ms. Gorelick highlighted why her testimony is so crucial, if not critical, to understanding why our government failed in detecting these attacks. At the closing of her editorial, Ms. Gorelick says she made all relevant opinions and briefs available to the Commission. However, the Commission would not accept this reply from National Security Director Condoleezza Rice, and they most definitely should not accept this excuse from one of their own members. Now, I am not in a position right now to judge the validity of these competing claims. Most of us are not in a position to say whether Attorney General Ashcroft is right or wrong. I do not know if, in fact, Ms. Gorelick's policies prevented us from catching the terrorists. I do not know if the current administration could have done more to tear down this wall. But I do know that we need to have, and Americans deserve, the full and complete answer to these questions. Never mind that resolving the dispute between Attorney General Ashcroft and Commissioner Gorelick is the essence of this Commission's charge. Never mind that Condoleezza Rice was subject to intense criticism for refusing to testify under oath, which, by the way, she finally did. Never mind the fact that Dr. Kissinger was widely criticized and stepped down for far less of an appearance of conflict of interest than Ms. Gorelick has. Never mind that the Gorelick memo is the biggest news out of the hearings thus far. And, obviously, we must keep in mind the glaring self-interests of this Commissioner. We believe that the Commission's charge is that all witnesses with essential information, particularly with the ability to clarify policies, must testify. Why is Ms. Gorelick above the standard? The American people, the victims' families and the Commission have a right to hear from Ms. Gorelick in public under oath. Simple logic tells us that simply recusing herself from her activities will not suffice. Ms. Gorelick must step down. She must submit her actions and the actions of her Justice Department to the same scrutiny that Dr. Rice and the current administration faces. How can she claim impartial judgment on policies she so obviously disagrees with? How can she comment on the failings of our intelligence and law enforcement communities if her policies actually influence those failings? In short, how can she be on both sides of the witness table? We created this commission to assess our weaknesses and to make recommendations. To that end, we need to continue the tough, honest questionings that have been the hallmark of these hearings. If Ms. Gorelick refuses to step aside and submit herself under oath to questioning, then the outcome of this commission must be looked at in an entirely different and very tainted light. We would have to ask ourselves what we do not know from what now seems to be destined to be an incomplete record. Knowing what we know about Ms. Gorelick's policies, we must demand she answer for them if only to clear up the charges brought by Attorney General Ashcroft that her policies were to blame. There are many questions to be answered. And obviously Ms. Gorelick must step down and testify under oath.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight on the Medicare prescription drug plan. Since the mid-1980s, the number of employers offering prescription drug coverage to their retirees has been declining steadily. In 1988, 66 percent of employers provided these benefits to retirees. In the year 2000, it was only 34 percent. To address this alarming trend, the Medicare prescription drug bill provides employers an incentive to keep their coverage. They are going to get 28 cents for every dollar that they spend on prescription drug benefits for their retirees. This applies to all employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage and those of corporations, unions, and government entities. Because of these incentives, AARP and the American Medical Association endorse the bill that we passed last year. It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to twist the truth and distort the facts by scaring seniors into believing that this bill would cause them to lose benefits. That is the furthest thing from the truth. What the Democrats do not tell seniors is that for the first time Congress has acted to slow this trend.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening because many of my elderly constituents in Florida have been misled about the new Medicare law. They have been misinformed because of the distortions spread by some of the liberal special interest groups and, quite honestly, some bitter Democrat politicians. These insincere groups have even tried to smear the AARP, an organization that seniors have trusted for over 45 years. They have tried to discredit AARP along with 300 other health care organizations. AARP supports the health care law that Democrats quite honestly wish that they could take credit for. Unlike what appears on TV, the biggest supporters of this bill are not the pharmaceutical companies. They are patients rights groups, senior advocacy groups, nurses and other health care professionals who have made quality health care and services their priority. Mr. Speaker, I ask, are 300 nonpartisan organizations interested only in health care all wrong, while a handful of politically motivated Democrat interest groups are right? The answer is absolutely not.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously Secretary Principi has in a Committee on the Budget hearing that I questioned him extensively on, said this is what he needs to meet the needs of every veteran seeking services, and this should be the number that we honor. Ours is a clear $1.2 billion, without some offsets, which I am still trying to pursue, definitions of ``those offsets.''

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I cannot at this moment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, when I could go home on the weekends and get away from Washington, D.C., where the lobbyists have all the Gucci loafers and the couple of thousand-dollar suits and get home with the real people, what the people back home are saying is, ``Ginny, work on cutting the deficit, protect our homeland, and be sure that our military, our brave young men and women who are fighting the war against terrorism, are adequately funded.'' And then they add a p.s, and the p.s. says, ``And don't forget to adequately fund veterans' health care.'' In Florida, we have a huge number of veterans. I have a great debate going whether I have the second or third largest number of veterans in my district. But I can just tell you that it is a huge number of veterans, approaching about 300,000. Taking care of the veterans and veterans' health care while meeting all of the other needs that the constituents tell me back home are important to them is something that we were able to accomplish in this budget. I actually think that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) deserves like nine stars up there, or ten stars. He and the Committee on the Budget have done a great job. We have increased funding for the Department of Defense, we have increased funding for homeland security, and in the committee we actually increased veterans' health care funding. The chairman raised his mark by $1 billion, and I added in another $200 million, which meets the amount that the Secretary says that he needs. When I was in the Florida senate, we cut department budgets left and right. We told them, go back and cut your request. We are adequately meeting the needs of veterans, according to Secretary Principi. When we had a vote on the budget that increased veterans' health care funding by the amount that the Secretary said he needed, because I grilled him in a previous committee, when we had that vote, guess what? The other side voted against the budget. I was not here when Congress increased eligibility for veterans' health care. As a result, as this chart shows, the number of veterans using VA medical care has increased from 2.5 million in 1995 to 4.7 million today, and is certainly growing. The next chart shows that also since 1995, total spending on veterans' medical care has increased from $16.2 billion to $28.3 billion. Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that this has been since the Republicans have been in control. You can see the large increases as shown in the yellow bars. This is a 75.2 percent increase, where the Republicans have made sure that veterans' health care and the mandatory programs are adequately funded. This chart just shows the veterans' medical care increases. When the Secretary took over, he had long waiting lines in many of the community-based outpatient clinics. He worked to whittle them down. He worked to reduce the amount of time that it takes for a VA disability claim. He made that a priority. They put additional people on. There is still a waiting list, but we funded them to the point where they have reduced the waiting list by more than 50 percent, and we are continuing to work very, very hard to make sure that veterans funding is there for the VA.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely. When you look at the Senate budget and you look at the potential that they have there for an offset, an unknown offset, I do not know what that is. I cannot go home and tell my veterans that in the Senate budget that offset would not increase fees, because I do not know, when that is a budgetary process that they have in the other body which makes it appear, I believe, as if they have more funding. We do not have that required offset in our budget in the House; and I commend the gentleman for the transparency of the budget. In both the Senate and the House budget, we removed the President's proposal to establish a $250 user fee for Priority levels 7 and 8 veterans, or to increase prescription drug plans. That language is included in there, and that is a commitment we made. I have, as we used to say in New York, now I am from Florida, ``agada'' over the unknown. I wanted to make sure that the figures that are being portrayed in the Senate as being higher is not a process where they could actually be perhaps in the future including some fees in there, which would be totally unacceptable to us.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment to report on the progress of women in Iraq. I am the vice-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, and it gives me great pleasure to tell about the progress that we have made. Iraqi women greeted the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13 with joyful relief. As one woman reported from an Iraqi women's conference taking place in Jordan, Almost all broke into tears and sobs that the man who had managed to reach into every individual's personal life and rip it apart by killing their husbands, sons, and fathers, and raping and maiming their daughters, their mothers, and very often themselves, was brought to justice. The United States is working with women in Iraq on programs that will broaden their political and economic opportunities and increase women's and young girls' access to education and health care. In early 2003, the United States Government committed approximately $2.5 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Iraq, and women were and still are full partners in this process. However, women's involvement in politics in Iraq actually is nothing new. Women have a long history of being involved in their country's development. Prior to the Baathist regime, Iraqi women were the vanguard of women in Islam. I would note that the first woman's organization in Iraq was actually formed in 1924. The signing of an Iraqi interim Constitution on March 8 marks the beginning of a new role for women in the country. The Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, and the Iraqi Governing Council agreed to a process to restore Iraqis' sovereignty beginning with a fundamental law leading to a permanent Constitution. They agreed that a Bill of Rights would ensure equal rights for all Iraqis, regardless of gender, sect, or ethnicity. Let us talk about the women's role in the new government. Three Iraqi women who are members of the new Governing Council are fully engaged in promoting the involvement of women in Iraq's future. An esteemed former female Iraqi judge in the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of all laws, legal practices, and the legal profession in Iraq for ways to increase equality and participation of women. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has adopted a policy of equal access to services and benefits for all of those who are eligible. And this policy will ultimately expand services as well for a larger quantity of Iraqi women. Quotas restricting the entry of women into certain university courses have been raised or lifted altogether. Iraqi women's organizations are being created to expand opportunity for women to improve their lives and those of their families. Let me talk more specifically about what kinds of activities are taking place and what kind of progress is actually being made. After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraqi women were among the first demonstrators and have steadfastly sought equal rights. On a very brief trip that I took to Iraq, I spoke to many women and they are indeed very, very happy with American action.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Having worked with the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), I can tell you he is a very calm person, but a very effective person, and somebody who fights very hard for homeland security and also for education. I would like to speak about the opportunity that we have in this budget for the No Child Left Behind program. Before I got to Congress, this House voted on a bipartisan basis for the No Child Left Behind law because it creates testing and accountability measures intended to improve academic achievement of all of the Nation's children. The law mandates testing similar to what we did in Florida for all of the students in grades 3 through 8 in reading and math. This first chart shows how, since No Child Left Behind began, how much more funding we have added; and this year we are adding over $1 billion to the No Child Left Behind Act. That bar is not on there; but in the 2005 budget, we will be adding additional funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by restructuring some funds within the existing Education Department. I am an educator and I teach college. Let me tell my colleagues, I have had to apologize to so many students who came to me who could not write a complete sentence, who had very little ability to read a paragraph and understand exactly what that paragraph said. They got a piece of paper okay; they got a diploma. But that diploma was virtually useless. Many States have remedial reading programs that students who enter into community college need in order just to keep up with community college level work, which means that we have been giving students a diploma, they have this piece of paper, and they really believe they graduated and that they have a high school diploma. Well, guess what, folks? It was a bogus diploma until we actually had accountability, until we said, you are going to be tested in these grades; and that is one of the reasons why the chairman and the members of the committee fought to add an additional $1 billion to No Child Left Behind. Mr. Chairman, there are those who argue that even with this additional $1 billion in funding that that is insufficient; yet the Secretary of Education recently cited the results of a study that found that schools are, in fact, currently receiving sufficient Federal funds under the No Child Left Behind Act to successfully implement the law, including its testing and accountability requirements. Are some people afraid that we actually are having testing and accountability? This law is a very good law; it needs to be funded. The Secretary of Education is saying that this is adequate as well as many of the States, State education departments that I have been in touch with.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak as the vice chair of the Women's Caucus in this House. Women outlive men by 5.4 years. Unfortunately, women are also spending 18 percent more on our health care. Couple those statistics with the fact that the average woman in Medicare earns half the income of a man and we are facing a very serious problem; that is, affording pharmaceutical drug coverage. My colleagues and I responded to the problem and created a new voluntary prescription drug benefit in the Medicare bill which we passed last year. The millions of female seniors left widowed, or without a husband's employer insurance coverage, will now have a benefit that will save them almost 60 percent off prescription drugs, if they choose to enroll. Mr. Speaker, 167,000 elderly women live in the great State of Florida below the poverty level. That is more than two times the number of men in poverty. I am proud to say that my colleagues on the Women's Caucus and I finally did something to assist low-income, elderly women who do not have insurance coverage.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good gentleman from Texas for being here. He is absolutely right, you cannot have it both ways. Mr. Kerry cannot vote against meaningful tort reform, and then all of a sudden be worried about the high cost of healthcare, when we all know what a very high percentage of it is. Certainly I have known percentages, anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of the cost of healthcare today is because we have become such a litigious society. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from my neighbor State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), also a freshman Member.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to dispel the many myths that too many Democrats in this Chamber and Presidential candidate John Kerry have been spreading at the historic progress that this Republican Congress has made and that the President signed making finally the promise that was made to seniors on prescription drugs come true. The Mediscare that is taking place is shameful. They are trying to frighten seniors into believing that this is not a bill that will help them, help seniors; and that is a shame. When the elderly are watching TV and they see the nasty ads on moveon.org, which are very despicable ads, I think that the record needs to be set straight on exactly the benefits of the Medicare prescription drug improvement bill that was passed and finally signed into law. I held some town hall meetings in my district, and we discussed the myths that were out there; and when I gave the seniors the facts, every one of them was very happy that this bill passed and is law and will benefit them. Let me give my colleagues an example. Myth number one is that seniors will be forced into a Medicare prescription drug plan. That is so far from the truth. The Medicare prescription drug plan is entirely voluntary. No one will ever be required to join. If you do not need it or if you do not want prescription drug coverage, you certainly do not have to enroll, not now, not ever, never, if that is what you want. In addition, you actually are prohibited from joining the prescription drug plan if you already receive coverage from another plan. Many seniors are fortunate because either they or their spouse retired from a company or government entity that offers prescription drug plans. The second myth that I was very happy to dispel was if they had prescription drug coverage now from their previous employer or their spouse's previous employer that that coverage would automatically be dropped. The fact is that the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute actually predicts that virtually no employees will lose coverage because of the very lucrative tax-free incentive that employers associations and labor unions will receive through this new law. It is very interesting that many of the congressional offices had calls that were placed when this bill was under consideration, and they were placed by many former union members who were frightened into believing that this bill would not benefit them. What the unions were not saying is that they would actually receive funding as an incentive to continue the prescription drug plan that they may have for retirees. When you look at the number of employers and associations and labor unions offering health care benefits, the number actually has declined from 66 percent in 1988 to only 34 percent in 2002. That was because of the rising costs of health care and prescription drug coverage. This bill allows employers to negotiate better discounts from manufacturers and also provides incentives for them to continue their prescription drug coverage. This is what employers have been waiting for, and that is, some government incentives to continue their prescription drug coverage. For every dollar that the employer or union spends between $250 and $5,000 for the individual's coverage, for every dollar that they spend there they will actually get a 28 cent subsidy, and that is a tax-free subsidy which if you do the math equals about a 40 percent tax-free amount. Never before has government ever offered this kind of an incentive to private enterprise to continue health care coverage. The third myth which, again, seniors, because of the moveon.org ads and some mailings that went out in many districts where there is a high number of seniors, and that was the myth that the new law would provide them with inadequate health care prescription drug assistance. The truth of the matter is that when a full prescription drug benefit takes effect, seniors could see their senior prescription drug spending reduced 25 to 75 percent, and that would be in exchange for a small premium estimated to be somewhere around $35. If we had not passed the bill last year, most would continue to pay full retail value for prescription drugs and would not see any savings unless you were covered under a private plan. The fourth myth was that it only provides coverage for drug costs up to $2,250. It does include a donut provision and individuals are being told that there was no coverage for catastrophic expenses. Once armed with the truth, the seniors were very convinced that this was a good bill because the Medicare prescription drug plan pays 95 percent of catastrophic costs of $3,600 or higher and the average senior spends somewhere around $1,450 a year on prescription drugs, and the prescription drug plan included in this bill will actually cover about 75 percent of the cost between $250 and the $2,250. This is $750 more than the average senior spends. For those expenses between $2,250 and $3,600, which are the ``donut,'' there still is an estimated 25 percent discount that will be available and then the person will only have to pay 5 percent of the drug costs once they reach that $3,600 amount. In other words, the government will be paying 95 percent of the pharmaceutical costs above $3,600. Unfortunately, one of the other scares that were perpetrated on seniors was that it privatizes Medicare. This bill modernizes Medicare to provide better health care within the existing Medicare program. Medicare will continue to be administered, controlled, and regulated and, lest we not forget, paid for by the Federal Government. Medicare already provides health care from private doctors, hospitals, and even allows participation in private integrated managed health care plans. This bill, which was signed into law, actually gives seniors more of a choice in doctors while providing the benefits that absolutely needed to be guaranteed. The sixth myth was that there were no price controls in the Medicare prescription drug bill and that the cost of prescription drugs was not addressed. Again, another untruth that was told because some people are just angry because we finally did pass a Medicare prescription drug bill, and that issue will now be this side of the aisle's to brag about and to tell people about back in their district. The bill does include reforms that will accelerate cheaper generic drugs to the market and it also removes the artificial ``S Price'' requirement. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that with these changes consumers will achieve billions of dollars in savings. One of the other savings that we actually will achieve from this bill is that we will be keeping seniors out of hospitals. Let me give a very brief example: I know of a woman in my district, her name is Fran, and she was on a multitude of medicine. She was 85 years old. Fran was actually cutting the medicine in half because she could not afford the cost of the prescription drugs. With this kind of coverage, she clearly will be not hospitalized as often and she will have the medication that she needs. In the meantime, she is taking advantage of some of the cards that are out there. She will be very happy when the card comes out in May of this year, the discount card, and also she prevailed upon her family to help her. This prescription drug plan that was finally signed into law, Mr. Speaker, means that she will not feel as if she has to be dependent upon her family. Another myth is that it does nothing to help Florida with our drug and health care costs. As you know, Florida is a great haven for seniors because of the wonderful weather and low taxes. This bill actually provides billions of dollars to the State for seniors and for those duly eligible Medicare and Medicaid retirees. This proposal provides 650,000 lower-income seniors in Florida, who are not eligible for Medicaid, $10 billion worth of prescription drug benefits. It also provides an additional 490,000 Floridians who are duly eligible for Medicare and Medicaid with over $6.7 billion annually in prescription drug coverage with no gap in that coverage. Currently, there are a large number of seniors in Florida who are reimporting drugs from Canada, and there was a fear out there that they would no longer be able to continue to import pharmaceutical products from Canada. When I informed them that the truth of the matter is that H.R. 1 requires both HHS and the Federal Trade Commission to study the safety and trade issues surrounding drug reimportation so that their safety would be of paramount concern, and that we are going to resolve the safety issue in an expeditious manner, they felt a great deal of comfort in that. One of the last myths that happily we dispelled was that it does not address preventive care. The fact is that under H.R. 1, all new enrollees will be eligible for a Welcome to Medicare physical. In addition, all Medicare beneficiaries will receive cholesterol screening and be part of a disease management program. Senator Kerry and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed. When this monumental bill came before Congress, Senator Kerry did not even take the time to cast his vote or to speak before his colleagues. Yet now he stands in criticism. Moreover, time and time again he voted to cripple America's health care system by opposing curtailments on frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care for all Americans. Seniors deserve peace of mind when making health care decisions. For the first time in history, we are protecting seniors by preserving their Medicare benefits while providing them with more choices. And, again, I want to stress, this is a voluntary program. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have some of my colleagues here this evening, and I want to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina to give him an opportunity to express his views because I know he was very supportive of this bill.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am certain the number of retirees in North Carolina are increasing all of the time, and I think it is important to remember that because women actually outlive men by about 5.4 years that so many times women are left living at the poverty level or just slightly above it. This certainly will help so many women because, for example, a woman who is a widow, or without her husband's insurance, will now have a prescription benefit available to them that will save approximately 60 percent of all drug costs if they choose to enroll. It is going to be a godsend for so many women, certainly for the retirees in North Carolina, and I know in Florida.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, HMOs have used the PBMs, the pharmacy benefit management, concept for so long because they realize that they are excellent at negotiating the prices of prescription drugs. Several of the HMOs in Florida have done that and have had significant savings that they then could pass on to the seniors who are actually in the Medicare+Choice plan. When you have somebody who knows how to drive those prices down, why reinvent the wheel.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that we need to point out is that there is a scheduled copay that was supposed to take effect for home health care. That is postponed in the bill, and it is eliminated in the bill. Additionally, there was a $1,500 therapy cap. I recently broke a bone in my arm, and $1,500 might be okay for a broken bone, but somebody who has a stroke, $1,500 worth of therapy would not even touch their needs. So we eliminated the $1,500 therapy cap, which I know there are many seniors out there that are very grateful for that. That is one of the small parts of this bill which means so much to so many seniors.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). It is good to have two doctors, one on each side of me here.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it certainly is much needed and certainly long overdue, and I think any senior who has been out there waiting will tell us that. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have been very fortunate to have been named the chair of the Women's Caucus; and so much of this bill tonight, for my remaining time, I would like to emphasize the importance of the bill to women who are retired. Mr. Speaker, in Florida alone, there are 167,000 elderly women who live below the poverty level. There are about 750,000 elderly women who are between the poverty level and the 150 percent of the poverty level who will be helped greatly by this bill. When we combine these statistics with the fact that the average woman in Medicare earns about half of the income from Social Security as a man, women are facing a very serious problem: How do they afford their prescription drug coverage? Congress obviously responded to these problems and created the new voluntary prescription drug bill. Again, I am emphasizing, it is a voluntary prescription drug bill. Unfortunately, women over the age of 65 suffer more from chronic illnesses than men. Over 14 percent of women suffer from arthritis, and 17 percent more suffer from osteoporosis. Five percent suffer from hypertension. Even more women have cardiac problems that will go undetected. The new benefit that is included in this bill, Mr. Speaker, the Welcome to Medicare physical for the baby boomers who are just coming into the Medicare arena, will be there to help detect many of these problems, including heart problems that very often historically have been misdiagnosed. Mr. Speaker, I know that the hour is late and I am running out of time, but I did want to say that for the 2.1 million women in my State with no husband present, an astounding 30 percent of those women live below the poverty line. Republicans in Congress passed the bill that will benefit retired women and men; and for that, as more information comes out about the bill, as the truth comes out about the bill, I know that seniors around the Nation from the many States that were represented here tonight will be very grateful and are very grateful that we had the courage to finally pass a Medicare prescription drug bill for seniors.