Thelma Drake

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I request unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, section 511 of the underlying bill establishes several factors that should be considered when deciding whether a member of the Selected Reserve should be involuntarily mobilized under what is known as Presidential Select Reserve. These factors include length and nature of previous service and family responsibilities. This amendment adds an additional category, frequency of assignments throughout a career. For the last 15 years, the members of the Reserve components have responded magnificently when mobilized. They have answered the Nation's call repeatedly in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. So smoothly have these mobilizations gone that it is sometimes easy to forget that each time the orders went out jobs were set aside, lives were disrupted and dreams were put on hold. This amendment recognizes the fact that Reservists have been repeatedly mobilized and that as long as they remain members of the Reserve components they will be subject to future mobilizations. The decision to involuntarily mobilize members of the Selected Reserves should never be taken lightly, and the commitment and dedication of these men and women should never be unfairly tasked. This amendment recognizes these ideals. I commend the gentlewoman from Texas for offering it. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I request unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I thank the gentleman for his amendment and for the opportunity to evaluate the length of time served. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for that very kind introduction and also for the opportunity to come and talk about such a wonderful program. You used the term that it is the modernization of Medicare, and often we only talk about the prescription drug benefit and seldom do we hear that we now have welcomed to Medicare checkups for our seniors as they are entering into Medicare. But I would like to take a moment first and thank all of the people across America who have worked so hard to bring this program to our seniors, to explain it, so that our seniors have the information and can make the best choice for them. I know that the CMS employees have worked very hard. Our Agencies on Aging, our Senior Services Agencies have already been side-by-side with us in Virginia working, and many Members of Congress have been holding meetings since last fall. Now, of course I have seen a great number of increase in people once we got into the first of the year after last fall. But I would also like to thank our pharmacists. I have had town hall meetings where pharmacists have come. I have had people in the Second District tell me they go to the pharmacy at their drugstore, leave their information they have filled out with their pharmacists, come back later and the pharmacist has run the program for them. Well, as you said, I am a freshman so I was not involved in the debate or the vote in 2003, but by holding meetings throughout the district I have learned an incredible amount about this program, and I have heard what our seniors are concerned about and certainly I have read the newspaper articles that say it is a confusing program. I would disagree with that completely. But I didn't know that not only were our seniors hearing from Medicare, they were hearing from me, and they were hearing from all of the 18 companies in Virginia that offer 42 programs. And I think that was one of the concerns in 2003, was would companies step up, would they offer this? And what we have seen overwhelmingly is yes, companies have stood up. Companies have created competition. They have reduced the price on the programs. Our seniors have not only a voluntary program in this Medicare program, if they choose to do exactly what they are doing and do not want the program that is entirely up to them as long, in my mind, that they know there are other options out there for them that are certainly much less expensive. And I know that the underlying premise when this was passed was that if we keep people well our overall health costs would be less. And as Congressman Murphy just told us, it is much cheaper to provide a prescription drug for heart disease than it is to do heart surgery. We have also heard the stories in 2003 about our seniors who either were not eating, were not heating their homes or were not buying their prescription drugs. I commend Congress for passing this legislation and all the people that have worked to put it in place. 42 million Medicare recipients and of that we know we are at 27, 28 million people right now. Six million do not need to sign up because they have as good or better coverage through a better plan. And our goal between now and May 15 is find those other 6 million people and make sure they know about the program. Some of the things I have learned in the district, first of all, seniors did not understand that this is available to everyone. There is no income qualification. If you are eligible for Medicare you are eligible for this program. I had one couple come just to ask me one question and they raised their hands early in the program and the man said, I have a wonderful health care coverage through my employer. I am retired. He said, but when I die my wife cannot continue in the program. So what does she need to do? And the answer was she is completely covered. When she loses that coverage, then she can go into Medicare part D with no penalty and she can go in within 60 days of losing that coverage. So little things like that. One man raised his hands and he said, I was talking to my insurance agent, because it is important to remember that Medicare part D is not a government program. It is private sector insurance policy with a reduced premium because of the Federal Government. He said, my insurance agent told me it was okay to buy a plan that didn't cover my prescriptions. And I said, no, that is the wrong answer. You call that agent today and say your Member of Congress says you may not buy his plan until he gets your prescription drugs. And what our seniors will find if they call, come to one of the seminars, we have asked people in our district to feel free to call us. We are happy to get them in the right place. But if you sit down at the computer, and I have done it myself, and I just go to www.medicare.gov and you scroll down very slowly and you do not go off into space somewhere on the left-hand side of the screen, you just keep scrolling down. Answer the questions. Put in the information and, most importantly, what are the drugs that you take, and that will sort through all the programs and give you the very best options. I stopped and visited a friend on New Year's Eve. She had recently lost her husband and I thought that would probably be a tough time of the year for her. While I was there I asked the question I seemed to ask all seniors today and that is, what are you doing about Medicare part D? When I asked I was surprised that she had no prescription drug coverage. And she said, I only take one prescription. It is $78 a month and I am not going to do anything. And I said, well, there are choices out there and maybe you should call or you should write and you should get the information. She said, I have already done that and she had the chart laid out of three plans that covered her drug. As she talked to me and looked at the plans, it became very apparent that there was one plan that would cost her $25 a month, $35 for her prescription, and she was going to save $28 a month just by signing up for that plan and that makes the assumption she won't take any additional drugs over the course of this year. I think it is important, and you have talked about the May 15 date, and our seniors I think are well aware that since this is a private sector insurance policy and it has open enrollment, it has penalties. If you do not sign up in time, just like a lot of other insurance products, there will be a penalties after May 15. But the other thing that is so important to remember is that if you do not sign up, May 15 enrollment is closed until November 15 and then you can sign up for January 1. So our seniors could be facing 7 months of not being able to get into the program simply because they didn't realize that. They didn't understand what their real choices were. So I applaud everyone who is working hard to tell them. Thank you for holding this tonight. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. There are lots of success stories in the Second District. And I know you have other Members that want to talk about it as well. So thank you for giving me the opportunity. I certainly am grateful. I know our seniors are once they are signed into the plan for what this plan offers to them. When I talk to people my age or their parents, because they will come to our meetings, their first question is, How do I get it? My answer is, You have to be 65. So thank you very much.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that, and you brought up the issue of your mother, and that is a very important thing for us seniors to be thinking about because many of our seniors did buy the supplements that you are talking about that gave them some health care coverage as well as their prescription drug benefits. My daughter's mother-in-law has one of those, and she is paying over $300 a month for it. So we went online, and we looked at what can she get today under this new program. So I think it is important that people like your mother do not think that because they have one of those plans from before that that is good enough, that they can go on today and save an incredible amount of money. You can go into plans today that give you the health care coverage, as well as the prescription drug coverage, but there, again, with that reduced premium, my daughter's mother-in-law is going to save over $100 a month by going in and revamping that policy. I know a lot of our seniors got kind of hung up on the thought of deductibles and things like that, but there again, you need to understand that when Medicare set the plan, when Congress passed the plan, they put a cap on what a deductible could be of $250, and many of these plans have no deductibles. We keep talking about a donut hole where there will be a gap in coverage at a certain point, and what I say in my meetings is, if you did not have any coverage, you have been living in a black hole. You can pick a plan that has no gap in coverage based on what you want to pay monthly and how to streamline it for you. The other point I wanted to make as you continue on is one of the questions I have really been asked is what if I take no medication. Isn't that a wonderful thing for our seniors today? I always look at them and say I bet you bought a homeowner's policy and you have insurance on your car and you buy those before you need them. Same thing for our seniors with prescription drug coverage. When they go in and look at these programs, there are so many options, low-price options, that it is worth that for the peace of mind to know that next year when you go to open enrollment, you can always change the plan, upgrade the plan, but you are in the plan. So I thank you for letting me talk about your mother.

Mrs. DRAKE. That is what is so important is that our seniors have choices, and you mentioned our veterans. I just wanted to finish up with them and let you finish up this evening and to remind our veterans that they are the only group of people that keep their veterans benefits and can purchase into Medicare Part D as well. So that gives them the ability, if there are medications they need that are not covered by the VA, that they can be covered by Medicare Part D. So I want to make sure that they understand that since they are the only group that can have both. So certainly thank you again for letting me be here. Thank you for letting me talk about your mom and talking about our veterans, and there are so many things to talk about with the program. I would like to encourage everyone, if there is a workshop in their area, to please attend because it is amazing the questions and the answers and the much better understanding and that you realize this is a good product for seniors. The price is so much lower, and it gives them so many choices.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. I would certainly like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to join you this evening to talk about something that is so critical to our Nation. And before I go into the issue of border security, I just want to comment a moment on what you started out with, and that is Medicare part D. First of all, you and I are freshmen; so we were not in Congress in 2003 when the very largest change to Medicare took place, but I know that both of us have been committed to making sure that citizens in our district understand what this new benefit is for them. And I think it is important just to tell America where we are today, that there are 42 million Americans who qualify for Medicare. Remember, anyone who is eligible for Medicare and is receiving Medicare is eligible for this new benefit. As of today, 28 million of those have signed up for coverage. The expected figure by May 15 is 30 million people, and there are 6 million people that have been identified that will not need to sign up because they are military retirees, Federal retirees, State retirees, or have other programs. That is going to leave us on May 15 with 6 million Americans that we have not reached. So I think it is important to talk about it so that our seniors understand what a wonderful benefit this is. What I have learned in my district is when I talk about Medicare part D as being a private sector insurance product with a reduced premium, then all the rest of it makes sense, that they have choices. It is a voluntary program and gives them, as you have already said, the ability to have prescription drug coverage, which many of them have not had in the past. So I want to thank you for talking about Medicare part D, and I know the work that you have done in your district as well to make sure that our seniors know and they make the best decisions for them. But what I wanted to talk about tonight is the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. That is the name of the bill that we passed in December of 2005 in this House. Unfortunately, at that time there was not any press coverage about that bill. We really were not hearing about it until the Senate took the bill up about a week or so ago. I know that you and I share the same belief, that the very first step in any debate about immigration reform is the very first debate which has to be secure our borders. We believe that our country must be open for trade, tourism, and legal immigration and closed to terrorists, drug dealers, and criminals. But the bill that passed in December, and I think it is important for America to know, a lot of the components that were in that bill, things such as an employment verification system where employers would be required to check Social Security numbers with Social Security and Department of Homeland Security, today that exists, but it is simply a voluntary program, and we all know the stories about fraudulent documents that are out there. Increased penalties for alien smuggling, mandatory minimum sentences and increased penalties. A crackdown on alien, either legal or illegal, gang members. They would now be inadmissible and deportable, and our Attorney General can designate certain groups as gang members. It also bans benefits for alien gang members, stiffer penalties for aliens who enter after being removed. It bars aliens with aggravated felony convictions from receiving green cards. There is now cooperation and reimbursement between our border sheriffs and our Federal law enforcement to reimburse them for the work that they are doing for us. Increased authority for the Department of Homeland Security to detain dangerous aliens. Our courts have prohibited this in the past, and the result is that dangerous aliens have been released. It also provides for the removal of these aliens. It bars terrorist aliens from naturalization. There is increased security for our borders with both military support and Department of Defense surveillance. It requires a comprehensive risk assessment of our ports and land and maritime borders and radiation detection devices. Increased inspectors, 1,000 over a 4-year period, and an additional 1,500 K-9 units over the next 5 years. Physical barriers, state-of-the-art surveillance technology, including cameras, radar, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles. It eliminates the release, which is our current catch-and-release program, and requires that they must remain in custody, an illegal alien, until removed. Better communication and sharing of information with our law enforcement community and promotes international policies with Canada and Mexico and requires reports back to Congress. So I think these are commonsense solutions that America expects Congress to put into place. But as you have mentioned our work is continuing, that the Senate is now having a very, very active debate. That debate will continue in the House. And I think that we all agree that we must revamp this process but starting with the very first component, which is securing our borders. But we also need to end the lottery that exists, get rid of senseless rules and endless litigation, and we must have a policy in our Nation of catch and return and not our current catch and release. And the goal, of course, would be to stop illegal crossings in the first place. And I think the American people deserve that. They deserve to know that that is what is taking place. But as we continue with these discussions, one of the discussions that will take place, of course, is what about workforce, what about guest workers? How should that be crafted and what should that look like so we know who are the people who are here? Why are they here? What are they doing here? What is the purpose that they are here? But as a component of that, I also think it is critical that we deal with the issue of health care and that employers who want these workers in our Nation, and we know there is a tremendous need for them, would have to address that issue of health care right up front and not put that burden on the American people as it has done in the past. So I thank you for the opportunity just to come and tell America what the House of Representatives did do and that as we continue the debate that they will understand that the first goal is secure our borders. We know this is a national security issue. We know the goal of our enemy is to destroy our Nation, to attack us at any possible turn. I am grateful to our very brave military men and women who we know are taking out their leaders right now, shutting down their money, and keeping them busy over in Iraq and that they have not had the ability to attack our Nation again. And I think that we expect in Congress and the American people expect that we not allow these people to enter because of poor policies that we have in place; that our doors be open for tourism, for travel, for legal immigration, and closed to those who would do us harm. And I thank you for arranging this meeting tonight and allowing me to join you in it.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Susan Bailey-Scott of Virginia Beach, Virginia, upon receiving the Commonwealth Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award. The CARE award honors outstanding educators who work to enhance the lives of their students. This year's honorees are recognized for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of the students they serve. It is presented by Commonwealth Academy, located in Alexandria, Virginia, and honors those committed to diverse learning throughout the nation. Susan Bailey-Scott, a middle school math teacher at Ruffner Academy in Norfolk, Virginia, is honored for her work in promoting diverse learners in the spirit of the No Child Left Behind Act. Ms. Bailey-Scott has been teaching for nine years, including two years in Japan. She received her B.A. in Business Administration from James Madison University and her master's in Education from Old Dominion University. Ms. Bailey-Scott also has completed some post- graduate work at Old Dominion and William and Mary. Ms. Bailey-Scott is the Math Department Chair at Ruffner, and she is very active in teacher training. She has been a cooperating teacher with both Norfolk State University and Old Dominion University teacher candidates and has been a presenter at numerous education conferences. Ms. Bailey Scott has won a variety of awards for teaching, including Who's Who Among America's Teachers and Norfolk Public Schools District Teacher of the Year. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Susan Bailey-Scott and congratulating her on this distinguished achievement.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 354) expressing the continued support of Congress for requiring an institution of higher education to provide military recruiters with access to the institution's campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of certain Federal funds.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States, in unanimously deciding in favor of the government's position in the case Rumsfeld v. the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., sent an emphatic rebuke to those who would view opposition to military recruiting as a form of protest. The military recruiting process within our colleges and universities is an important pillar of our national security that we can ill afford to cavalierly cast aside because of a policy disagreement. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the Solomon Amendment named for the late U.S. Representative, Gerald Solomon, and strongly supported from its inception in 1994 by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). Mr. Solomon's and Mr. Pombo's initial objective was simple. No institution may deny access to recruiters, to students and student information, or student access to Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC programs, without forfeiting their Federal grants and other funding. Under a number of modifications over the years, the language ruled on by the court requires access to military recruiters that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access provided to any other employer. While the law initially put only Department of Defense funding at risk, the current law, upheld by the court's ruling, would allow the funding from eight agencies to be withheld, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The group, representing a number of law schools and professors, had persuaded the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia that the Solomon Amendment violated the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, because it forced a law school to choose between surrendering first amendment rights of speech and association and losing Federal funding for its university. At the center of the debate was the objection of certain organizations to the Department of Defense policy that denies military service to open homosexuals. The Supreme Court decision discredited the case by clarifying that the Solomon Amendment regulated conduct and not speech, and that it was clear that the policy on homosexuals was a government statement and not the policy of the law schools. The decision also noted that the Solomon Amendment presented no risk to the freedom of association of the law schools since there was no capability for recruiters to become part of an institution and actively hijack the public perception of the institution's views. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 354, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), is a celebration of a wise and just decision by our Supreme Court and a strong statement of Congressional support for the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment expresses the inherent wisdom of its author and the finest traditions of our Nation. In Mr. Solomon's view, barring military recruiters was an intrusion on Federal prerogatives, a slap in the face to our Nation's military personnel, and an impediment to a sound national security policy. Mr. Speaker, the Solomon Amendment really does work to protect the future of our Nation. Today, there are only three small law schools that have chosen to deny recruiters access to campuses and student information. They simply do not require Federal funding to survive, and they have chosen to protest the Department of Defense policy on homosexuals in the military as is their right. But for the overwhelming majority of colleges and universities, the worthy messages of patriotism and service to Nation are being heard by America's youth and they are stepping forward to confront our enemies in this long war against terror. Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Pombo for introducing this resolution. It is imperative that everyone in our Nation understand the importance of military recruiting and the unequivocal committee support of the Congress for the Solomon Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 354. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the sponsor of the bill.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 698) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 698 calls on all Americans to take a moment and reflect on the sacrifices that our young men and women in the United States military make every single day. I am honored to support this resolution. Today we stand here, not as Republicans or Democrats, not as liberals or conservatives, but as Americans, able to put our differences aside and remember the commitment and sacrifices of those who are willing to go into harm's way to preserve the very freedoms we sometimes take for granted. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I sometimes have the great distinction of traveling with my colleagues and meeting and listening to these brave men and women; and in talking with these young men and women, I can never help but to come away inspired by the strength of their convictions. Last year, I was honored to fly aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt as it was preparing for its recent deployment and spend the night aboard the massive aircraft carrier. It was there that I was able to see firsthand the thousands of 18- and 19-year-olds who transformed the Roosevelt from a floating piece of metal into the most powerful tool of American foreign policy. I gained a deeper understanding of the sacrifices that these young sailors endure in defense of our Nation. Many of them will work on that flight deck and in the bowels of the ship for 17-hour days enduring a heat much worse than we ever experience on a summer day here in Washington. When they finally get some rest at the end of a long and grueling day, it is in cramped quarters with little or no privacy. I was astounded by the dedication, professionalism, and heart of the young men and women who make up her crew. They truly show that the legacy of the Greatest Generation lives on in the spirit of our youth. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Theodore Roosevelt came home to Norfolk, which I proudly represent, at the end of its 6-month deployment to the Middle East, where it launched over 5,000 sorties in support of the global war on terror. This resolution is for those brave sailors, as well as all the brave men and women who have time and time again answered the call and proudly served this Nation when its principles and values have come under attack. They have never wavered in their defense of freedom and their sacrifice should never be forgotten, least of all by us here in Washington. I would like to thank Mr. Knollenberg for introducing this very important resolution and for his commitment and dedication to our fighting men and women. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mrs. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, I was meeting with representatives of DOD on Military Health Care issues and did not realize the vote had finished and a new one started--my error. I simply mistimed it. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''