Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5122. I would like to commend Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, my colleague on both the Rules Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Cole, and thank him for this time; and all of the Members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this legislation in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, this bill does a remarkable job covering a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both active and Reserve components. It clearly meets the immediate needs of the warfighter. From a 2.7 percent across-the-board pay raise to an additional $50 billion to prosecute the war on terror, this legislation addresses the most pressing needs of our troops in a very trying time for America. H.R. 5122 also recognizes the perils of cutting force numbers at a time when our troops are stretched thin by increasing both active duty personnel and National Guard end strength. For our deployed soldiers, this legislation authorizes additional funding for their force protection and needs and support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, to include up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED protection kits and gunner protection kits, and, perhaps most importantly, improvised explosive device jammers and state-of-the-art body armor to protect our brave men and women from roadside bombs. Speaking on behalf of my district, Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful for the hard work of the House Armed Services Committee this year in authorizing funding for 20 F-22 Raptors, as well as conditionally approving the multiyear contract. Authorizing funding for the procurement of C-130Js and for the modernization of the C-5 will go a long way toward providing stability for our forces and ensuring that America maintains a modern airlift capability for the foreseeable future. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am especially appreciative for the efforts of Chairman Hunter and subcommittee Chairman McHugh in listening to my concerns and addressing the needs of the families of our fallen soldiers. Mr. Speaker, a brave young man from my district who heroically gave his life for our country, Sergeant Paul Saylor, from Bremen, Georgia, his family was not able to view his remains for a final time when his body was returned. With the help of Chairman Hunter and Chairman McHugh, H.R. 5122 includes a provision requiring the Department of Defense to train health care professionals on the best practices for the preservation of remains following field combat death. With this provision, we are taking steps to ensure that we can honor the remains of our fallen heroes with the dignity and respect they and their families deserve. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their hard work, as well as my colleague, Mr. Cole. H.R. 5122 is a strong bill. We can be proud of it, and it deserves the unanimous support of this House.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take this hour designated by the Speaker, by the leadership, we refer to it as the leadership hour, and to take an opportunity to talk about things that are important to this majority, are important, indeed, to the American people and that is what we are going to do during this hour. We are going to talk about the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. But I want to digress for just a minute, Mr. Speaker. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just spent the better part of an hour talking about the budget. During the course of that colloquy, we heard the word ``hypocrisy'' used a number of times. I want to address this just for a moment, because the hypocrisy, of course, is to suggest that the tax cuts that this administration and this Republican majority have enacted and just today continued those tax cuts, refused to let the other side of the aisle in this body raise taxes on the American people. They spent a good deal of time talking about the fact that the rich get the biggest tax break. Well, the hypocrisy of that argument, Mr. Speaker, is that the rich, if you call someone with an adjusted gross income of $75,000 a year rich, then so be it. But these are the people that are paying most of the taxes. These are the people that are paying at the 39.6 marginal rate, the highest rate. So for them in any across- the-board tax cut, and indeed that is exactly what this is, every taxpayer saves money. But those that are paying the most in taxes with an across-the-board cut, Mr. Speaker, are quite naturally on a dollar amount, not a percentage amount but on a dollar amount, are going to get the biggest tax break. Of course they are. But what is that enabling them to do, the small business men and women in this country who create probably 75 percent of the jobs? It is to grow their businesses, because of the opportunity to rapidly depreciate for capital improvements and bricks and mortar and putting in a new product line in their business, to hire some of these people who today because of their unemployment are not paying any taxes. It is really hard, I think, and I think my colleagues understand this, the American people understand it, it is really pretty hard to get a tax refund when you are not paying any taxes. But indeed we do that, too. The child tax credit, increasing them from $600 to $1,000. Those are refundable tax credits that are going to people who indeed are not paying any taxes. Mr. Speaker, again, as I said at the outset, what we are talking about tonight has got to be one of the most important things that we have done for the American people since Medicare was first passed when I was a freshman medical student in 1965, where there was a part A, the hospital part; a part B, the doctor part; but no part D, the drug part. For many years, I am going to say probably within 5 years of the passage of that bill, people were starting to wonder why we didn't have that benefit of prescription drugs when more and more of these wonder drugs, whether we are talking about pharmaceuticals or antibiotics or whether we are talking about beta blockers for heart disease and high blood pressure and irregular heart rhythms, whether we are talking about oral, by-mouth chemotherapy. And we realized, of course, it wasn't just surgery, cutting something out, a diseased organ, that we really need to put our emphasis on, it is preventive health care and allowing people to be able to afford to get prescription drugs to lower the blood sugar, to prevent the ravages of diabetes, such as losing your limb or having your kidneys fail and going on renal dialysis and maybe eventually needing a kidney transplant. Or to treat high blood pressure, a condition which for a long time has no symptoms, absolutely no symptoms. It is incipient. We use that word. A person could end up in the emergency room having already had a stroke before anybody knew that they had high blood pressure. Or talk about coronary artery disease which most people have in adult life. And until we realized that elevated cholesterol and certain type lipids in the blood stream is what caused those plaques to form in those coronary arteries that supply blood, and oxygen, of course, to the heart muscle, when we finally realized that if we could lower cholesterol and lipids in the body, that we could prevent heart disease, coronary artery disease, heart attacks, and not have to resort to what we know, of course, today as bypass surgery. It is such a compassionate thing to prevent these diseases rather than to treat them when people are really, really in danger of sudden death or a stroke. That is what this is all about. That is what this Republican leadership, President Bush, has delivered to the American people, a promise that other Congresses have made. I can assure you that work was done on this in the past, but former Presidents, former administrations, former Congresses just failed to deliver. And so we are very proud to stand here tonight and talk about this wonderful addition to Medicare, the part D prescription drug part. It is optional. It is just like part B, Mr. Speaker; a person doesn't have to sign up for it. Yes, it is premium based. There is a monthly premium often deducted from the Social Security check of those who can afford it. And those who cannot afford it, it is not going to cost them anything. The low-income seniors who qualify for the Medicare supplement on this wonderful program, for them, they pay no deductible, they pay no monthly premium. There is no gap in the coverage. They have catastrophic coverage, and the only cost may be $1 for a month's supply of a generic drug, or up to $5 for a month's supply of a brand name drug. There are approximately 42.7 current Medicare beneficiaries in this country today. And, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I want to draw your attention to my first slide because this really shows you the success that we have had in this 6-month opportunity, starting November 15 through upcoming, in 6 days, May 15. Of those almost 43 million Medicare beneficiaries, most of them, because of age 65, possibly 5 or 6 million because of a disability at a younger age--look at this, Mr. Speaker--37 million seniors now have prescription drug coverage under Medicare part D, 37 million. Now, we want to get this up to 40 million in the next 6 days. And that is really why I am here tonight, to get this message out to let those few stragglers, if you will, in regard to signing up, to do everything we can. And we will do that back in our districts. We have been doing it. In fact, I have been working on that, talking about trying to get that message out for over 2 years, when we first passed this Medicare Modernization Prescription Drug Act in November of 2003, a very proud moment for this physician-Member, by the way, to support such a wonderful program. But now we have got the latest count, 37 million, and that is, I think, a fantastic achievement in this first sign -p period. Why is it so important? Well, seniors, if you can see on this next slide, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, seniors are saving an average of $1,100 a year with Medicare prescription drug coverage. Maybe more importantly, though, that is average for the 37 million that are signed up. But maybe more importantly, the low-income seniors are saving an average of $3,700 a year. $3,700 a year, that is a lot of money. Mr. Speaker, in regard to that number that I just shared with my colleagues, $3,700 a year for those low-income seniors, and that is why we are pushing so hard in these next 6 days. Of the 6 million, I said 37 million have signed up out of almost 43 million. Of those 6 million that haven't, we are estimating, pretty accurately, that close to 3 million of those are low income. They qualify for this subsidy, and some of them, as I say, their only cost of these lifesaving prescriptions would be a $1 copay. And so it is very important, most important that we get the word out to them in these next few days, and to get them signed up, because this is literally a Godsend. It is a no-brainer. And for whatever reason, maybe they have heard some of the disingenuous, well, downright, you know, they talked about the H word in their hour just a few minutes ago, hypocrisy from the other side. Regrettably, I feel that that is part of the reason why the most needy, 3 million of them, have missed the opportunity thus far, but we are determined to get the word out to them. That is the compassionate thing to do and we are doing it. Proof of the pudding, Mr. Speaker. More than a million seniors have enrolled in Medicare part D just since April. I am talking about a 2- week period. So we are talking about almost 500,000 people have signed up just in the last 2\1/2\ weeks. So we are getting the word out, and thank God, our seniors are responding. Well, how is the program working for those that may have signed up on November 15, 2005, and immediately, January 1, 2006, started getting their prescriptions with a prescription drug benefit? Before that, of course, we know that the seniors, probably the only group of patients that go to the drug store, went to the drug store and had to pay sticker price. They weren't getting any deals, and nobody negotiated any discount for them because of volume buying. It was just like going to buy a new automobile and paying that price on the windshield that we refer to as sticker price. Most people don't have to do that. But that is what the seniors were doing. Well, really, that is what some were doing. A lot were just too embarrassed to even go into the drug store knowing that they couldn't afford to pay even half that amount. But what has happened since January 1 over this 5-month period? Well, 90, and I want to call my colleagues' attention to this next slide. I know the printing is a little small, but look closely because these numbers are very telling. Ninety-one percent of seniors say their plan is convenient to use at their pharmacy. And I want to thank our pharmacists, too, by the way, especially our independent pharmacists because a lot of times it is just them and maybe a clerk up front, and yet they are spending the time to explain; and I know it is at significant cost to their bottom line. And I think that they are to be commended because they have helped make this program a success, and we are committed to continuing to work with them. I know, Mr. Speaker, in my district, I have met just within the last 10 days with some good personal friends who are independent pharmacists, and they are bringing some concerns to us. There is still some heartburn on their part, and I understand that, and we are going to continue to work with them because of the great work that they have done for us. Going back to the slide, 90 percent say that they know how their plan works and they know how to use it. Eighty-five percent say their plan covers all the medicines they need. And nearly 80 percent are happy with the amount of coverage they have, and this is so important, they would recommend their plan to others. I don't want to miss this opportunity to say, my colleagues, and I am sure on both sides of the aisle, you have had similar experiences. My mom, God bless my mom. I am thinking about her of course a lot this week because of Mother's Day coming up on Sunday. But the greatest Mother's Day gift that I gave to her, Mom is 88 years old, I don't think she would mind me telling that because she looks like she is 68, and if it wasn't for a couple of gimpy knees, she would still be out on the golf course. But I sat down with Mom a couple of months ago and we went through this. It was a little bit time consuming, maybe a little bit more confusing than I thought or she thought it would be. But she is saving about $1,200 a year now. And this is what we are talking about, real, real savings. Mom's very happy with the program. She picked her own drug store, very close by her home in Aiken, South Carolina, and she didn't have to change a thing and is very pleased with the program. Listen to what some of the senior organizations are saying about this program today. And, Mr. Speaker, I remember during the debate, and of course we got accused of passing this bill in the dark of night; I would say to my colleagues in regard to that, we started the debate late in the afternoon and we were determined to get our work done, so we ended up on final passage, yes, in the dark of night. But had we started our debate in the dark of night, we would have passed this bill in the bright sunshine of the afternoon. That is just the way the clock works. I look at my job, Mr. Speaker, as a 24/7 job, and I am not a clock- watcher, just like I wasn't when I practiced medicine and delivered babies before coming to this body. People were always coming to me saying, don't all babies come in the middle of the night? And I said, well, no. But it seems that way because the patient either comes in in the middle of the night and ends up delivering in the daytime or comes in in the daytime and ends up delivering in the middle of the night. We delivered this baby in the middle of the night, but a beautiful, beautiful baby it was and is. And the other side criticized that great senior organization known as the AARP, of which I have been a member for, started at age 50, I won't tell you how many years. I don't want to tell my age because my wife says that will tell her age. But they were so mad, so mad that this organization, AARP, with 37 million seniors as part of that group, had the audacity to support a Republican bill. Look what the AARP says today, Mr. Speaker. With the Medicare drug program, more older Americans than ever before have access to affordable prescription drugs. The focus right now needs to be on helping people, not playing politics. Discouraging enrollment is a disservice to the millions who could be saving money on prescription drug bills. That's a quote from the president and CEO of the AARP, Bill Novelli. And I know Mr. Novelli, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know him and know that he doesn't play politics. He is just stating the facts. No hypocrisy here, Mr. Speaker. Well, I am not a regular reader of the New York Times, maybe the Washington Times. The New York Times is not known as a bastion of conservatism. But listen to what they say: ``The Medicare drug benefit's success depends heavily on getting lots of healthy people to sign up so that their premiums can help subsidize medicine for the chronically ill. The May 15 deadline should serve as a useful product to force fence-sitters to make a decision.'' Now, that is a New York Times editorial, April 3, 2006. Mr. Speaker, when we were debating, we had this resolution, Nancy Johnson, the distinguished chairwoman of the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means, put forward a resolution this evening encouraging all Members of this body to work hard over this next week to get people signed up. But the other side continues to try to put up a fence to be obstructionist to say, you know, don't sign up, and criticizing us for encouraging them to sign up, saying that we are cruel, that we are going to enact a penalty if they don't. Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, a lot of people, good people, good seniors are just like this senior. They have a tendency to procrastinate. If it was not for the April 15 deadline, I would never get my tax return in. Even with that, if there is an opportunity to extend it without significant penalty, I am going to take that opportunity. I have done that probably every year for the last 10 or so, waiting until absolutely until the last minute when really I had the facts, I had the information, and I needed to go ahead and get that done. But I just kind of put it off until the last minute. That is why we have a deadline. It is not to be cruel or to be coercing or forcing anybody to do anything. But, clearly, we anticipate that because of that deadline, and kind of a wake-up call to people, that 1.6 million more will sign up between now and next Monday. That is what that is all about. The New York Times certainly understands that. I can't understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who probably, most of whom read that newspaper every day, it is kind of maybe sort of biblical for them. They can't understand that, or maybe they missed that particular article. Listen to what the St. Petersburg Times said. Here is good news. Without exception, every senior I saw on the way out of the Gulfport Senior Center, that is in St. Petersburg, was happy or relieved. Carolyn Toliver, Dallas Texas Area on Aging. Carolyn Toliver, the benefits counseling coordinator at the Dallas Area Agency on Aging says she is not phased by the prospect of a last-minute surge. She even admits to wishing for one. I hope we are overrun, she said. This is a generous benefit. I don't want anyone to miss out on it. Here, again, from the New York Times editorial pages, it says many seniors are clearly saving money on drugs purchases. I quote, complaints and call waiting times are diminishing and many previously uninsured patients are clearly saving money on drug purchases. That was in The New York Times, an article entitled Medicare Drug Challenges. It was an editorial, actually, on April 3rd of this year. Mr. Speaker, the news indeed, is good despite, again, a lot of negativism on the other side. There were a number of things that were suggested when the opposition for this program was so strong. But today, as I pointed out at the outset, 37 million have signed up. Listen to this breakdown, because this is important too; 8.9 million enrolled in the stand-alone prescription drug plan, almost 9 million, 5.9 million are enrolled some Medicare Advantage. That is the program that used to be Medicare+Choice, but because of Medicare modernization, Mr. Speaker, it is much, much improved. Almost 6 million of the so- called dual eligibles, those people that because of their low-income and age were eligible not only for Medicare but Medicaid. Almost 7 million retirees are enrolled in a Medicare retiree subsidy. That is a supplemental plan that includes prescription drug coverage. There are still people that had the option, and I think is real important for us to remember that nobody is forced into Medicare part D. If they have got something that is just as good if not better, then we have encouraged them to stay in those programs. They are. Then, of course, there are 3.5 million that are covered under Federal retiree coverage, 1.9 million are could have had under TRICARE, 1.6 million are covered through the Federal employee health benefit plan, and then 5.8 million Medicare beneficiaries have some alternative source of what we referred to as credible prescription drug coverage. Some examples of that, Mr. Speaker, would be like Veterans Affairs, people are getting their medication. They are 65, they are on Medicare, they are eligible, part A and part B. But as far as the prescription drug part, they are utilizing the Veterans Administration. There are about 3.2 million that are using the VA. There are probably at least 100,000 that are getting their prescriptions through the Indian Health Service. There are maybe another half a million who are still working at age 65 and older, and they have a health insurance program that includes prescription drugs. Even though they are eligible for Medicare, they opt for those programs. If those programs, we call them credible programs, if they are just as good or better than the part D, and then something happens to one of those plans, maybe the premium is raised, maybe the copay is raised. Maybe the things that are covered are lessened. The coverage is not as good. Then a senior, and this is important information, this question is asked almost every time I have a town hall meeting, then if they want to switch into Medicare part D, that can be done, Mr. Speaker, without any penalty, without any penalty whatsoever. That kind of brings me to a point that I think is very important to make. Our friends on the other side keep saying that we are going to enact a 7 percent Medicare tax. That is the 1 percent per month additional premium that seniors have to pay if they miss the deadline. They say that we are imposing that tax, that Medicare tax, on those who can least afford it. Now, here again, the H word that I referred to earlier, this time is not hypocrisy, this time it is honesty and lack of. Because the fact is that there will be no penalty for anyone, those almost 3 million that we think are low income and have not signed up yet, we are going to continue to look for them. We are going to continue to talk to them in every way we can, print out, print media, television spots, town hall meetings by Members, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, to get them signed up beyond May 15, if they miss a deadline with absolutely no penalty. There will be a penalty for those others who are blessed with more assets, more resources, more income, who failed to sign up for whatever reason. But I guess the majority of those just would be simple procrastination. They will have to pay that penalty. So we are doing, I think, and that 37 million represents 87 percent of Medicare beneficiaries we think will get to 90 percent by Monday. For the first year of a program, and, indeed, the first of 6-month opportunity to sign up, that ain't too shabby. I think that as these that don't sign up that miss the deadline, realize, and, of course, they are not going to be able to get into the program until the next sign up period, which is November 15 of this year through December 31. Even though they are going to be faced with a 7 percent additional premium, they are going to come in. I think we are going to be approaching the high 90s, just like the optional program part B that covers doctor care and outpatient surgery and outpatient testing. That is such a good program that, of course, was enacted in 1965. A lot of people back then said, oh, that is too confusing. I am not sure I want to do that. Well, you look, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues today, when people turn 65, there is no question because they have the history of the success of part B. The same thing is going to happen with part D. We are making great progress, and my own State of Georgia, I would be remiss if I didn't give a little statistic on that. But we, in the State of Georgia, overall, are approaching a 90 percent signup rate. We have total people in Georgia now with prescription drug coverage on the Medicaid, 785,000 and growing. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes and talk about some of the things that we have heard during the debate on this program. One of the things that keeps coming up is this issue of drug reimportation, of being able to buy medications either over the Internet, mail order from another country, particularly Canada, or to actually, if you live on the northern border to actually go across the border and buy prescription drugs and get them a lot cheaper than they were in this country. Before we came forward in November of 2003 with this program, that is what people were having to do. The seniors literally were being forced to do something that was not approved by the secretary of HHS, the Secretary under President Clinton, the Secretary under George H. W. Bush, because there was some concern about safety, about packaging and contamination and bioterrorism. But, nevertheless, people were doing that, taking a chance and buying those medications because they were saving. But listen to what's happened since this program started January 1st of this year. This is from an article in a newspaper in Minnesota, which is one of those border States by the way. While enrollment in the Medicare drug benefit rose by 9 percent, sales of low-cost Canadian drugs last month fell by 52 percent. Why do you think that happened, my fellow colleagues? It happened because all of a sudden seniors were realizing now they were able to get their medication from their corner druggist right down the street at almost as low, maybe even as low or lower than what they were paying in going across the border and buying prescription drugs and taking a risk with their health. So while I was concerned, and I think that if this program was not working, that I would tend to agree with some of my colleagues who want to say, well, it ought to be legal to buy drugs from Canada. I think that we have negated the need for that with this program. That is what I hope we would accomplish. Indeed we have. There was just another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about too, that is the pharmaceutical drug discount program. Our pharmaceutical industry is a profitable industry. They get lambasted a lot by the other side of the aisle, about making too much profits and that sort of thing. But I don't ever hear them commending the pharmaceutical industry because of the compassion that they have shown with their prescription drug discount program, not just for low-income seniors, but for low- income everybody. They literally are giving away prescription drugs to people who meet certain criteria. Maybe they are not eligible for Medicaid in the State in which they live because they make a little bit too much, or maybe they have a few too many assets. But the pharmaceutical companies, and each one's programs, is a little bit different. But, you know, let's say somebody is on Lipitor or on Pravachol or on Prevocet or on one of these expensive medications. They are literally getting those drugs for free. Some people that signed up for the Medicare part D have been concerned because if they reach the donut hole and have to pay a lot out of their pocket, they feel like maybe they are in a program that is costing them more money because they had to come off of those pharmaceutical prescription drug discount programs. Well, the Inspector General had confused the pharmaceutical companies a little bit, and there was some concern about these programs and if they could legally continue. I want to tell you that Members of this body, I think really on both sides of the aisle, went to CMS, talked with the Inspector General and said, you know, that is not right. We need to let these companies continue to do that. Listen to what the result of that effort was, Mr. Speaker: Drug makers can continue assistance programs for seniors. HHS secretary Mike Leavitt: ``This is excellent news. In a legal opinion that could help many thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, drug manufacturers were told Tuesday,'' that was a couple of week ago, Mr. Speaker, ``that they can continue giving free medicine to poor people even if they are enrolled for the new drug benefit.'' Each year, large drug companies routinely give millions of free prescriptions to the poor. However, most of the drug companies had said that they would discontinue this practice for senior citizens now that they could get coverage through Medicare. We have reversed that. As Secretary Leavitt said, and I will give a quote here, ``this is excellent news for the many people with Medicare who have relied on these valuable patient assistance programs.'' The bottom line is a senior now can enjoy both the advantage of being on a Medicare part D prescription drug program and also the benefit when they get to the point where they otherwise would have to pay the full price at somewhat of a discount out of their own pocket, then the pharmaceutical companies can come in and fill that gap. A great program. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take some time to talk about individual cases. I think a lot of times my colleagues, we talk and tell facts and try to make our points, but I don't think anything does that better than what we refer to as anecdotal evidence. In other words, real live situations, people that give their testimonial. Listen to some of these. Mae Thacker of Kingston, Georgia, that is in the Eleventh District, my district in Bartow County, northwest of Atlanta, May was paying $781 a month for her medications. That is a lot of money. She had heard Medicare part D wouldn't save her any money and wasn't worth her time. That is sad, because that is the kind of rhetoric that far too many seniors have been hearing over the last couple of years. But its detractors were wrong. Mae learned about the program and she enrolled. She enrolled. And, guess what? With Medicare part D, Mae Thacker now pays only $178 a month. $781 a month with no Medicare part D; $178 a month with it. Total savings, my colleagues, $600 a month. That means I think that Mae Thacker can now pay her utility bill, buy her groceries, have a roof over her head and afford to get those prescription drugs that can save her life. Here is another. This is an e-mail that I received again from the Eleventh District of Georgia. Jerry O'Brien, Cobb County, my home county for the last 30 years. Here is what Jerry says. ``I went to Medicare.gov, www.medicare.gov, and I found a comparison of various programs. I chose one for my wife at a premium of $70 a month, but no deductible. The deductible, I think everybody knows, cannot be more than $250 a month for Medicare to approve that as a prescription drug plan. It can't be more than $250 a month, but it can be less. Jerry found one by going to the website that had no deductible and a $70 a month premium. Jerry goes on to say, ``We had no prescription insurance before and find Medicare part D to be very effective. We saved enough on the first prescriptions to pay for two months of the premiums.'' So the first prescriptions they saved $140. ``I realize the program got off to a shaky start, but as far as I am concerned, it is now working well.'' Jerry O'Brien, Cobb County, Georgia. Let's go out to Colorado, about as far as you can get in this country from Georgia, heading out west. Lyda, Lyda B lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Lyda had no prescription drug coverage and she was paying $1,200 a year for her medications. She found out she was eligible for extra help as a low income senior. Remember we talked about those, and really that has been the major emphasis of my discussion tonight, about how important it is to get to those 3 million here in the next 6 days. We are going to get close. We are going to get close. She found out she was eligible for the extra help, and, thank goodness, Lyda enrolled in a plan for her, not only no deductible, but no monthly premium. There is a premium, but Medicare pays for that because she qualifies because of low income and low assets. With Medicare Part D, Lyda now pays only $3 per prescription, saving her hundreds of dollars a month. Just think about that. $3 a prescription. A prescription would be a month's supply. If she were on one drug, then she is paying $36 a year. If she were on two, it would be $72 a year. If it were three, it would be just over $100. Compared to $1,200? A great deal for Lyda. Thank God she has taken advantage of it. Mr. Speaker, here is another. I don't have but about 15 minutes left, but I probably could spend 2 hours sharing these testimonials. Fern from Peabody, Massachusetts, she was paying $2,100 a year for medications. With Medicare Part D, Fern now pays only $660 a year. She says the savings are worth the time, and the enrollment process was not confusing or complicated. There is lots of help. The health insurance assistance programs in all 50 States, they are called different things, I think it is Georgia Cares in the State of Georgia, but this organization, plus all these senior organizations that volunteer their time at senior centers, maybe at your local library, the pharmacist in the drugstores, particularly the chain drugstores, CVS, Walgreens, Eckards, they have something called Medicare Tuesdays, Medicare Part D Tuesdays, where a pharmacist, instead of being behind a counter, there is one behind the counter filling prescriptions, but there is another one dedicated all day long to just sitting there and welcoming seniors to come in and let them explain the program to them and give them some options and help them get through the little confusion to get signed up. These are just a few of the stories. I particularly wanted to, Mr. Speaker, talk about a lady in Polk County, one of my favorite counties in my district. Lola Squires of Polk County was paying $1,016 a month for her medications. As a widow on a fixed income, she often had to choose between buying food and buying medicine. With Medicare Part D, Lola now pays only $27 a month and her savings are almost $1,000 a month, $989. Well, the whole point is the initial enrollment period ends May 15, Monday. Again, we want to say to those 5\1/2\, 6 million not signed up, sign up now to avoid the premium increase penalties. There will be no, and I repeat, no premium increase penalties on the low income. It is important that I say that over and over again, because the other side is suggesting just the opposite, and it is flat out not true. The way to do it, www.medicare.gov, or just pick up the telephone and dial 1-800-Medicare. Log on or call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for personalized assistance with Medicare Part D. The amount of personnel has been beefed up tremendously in this last 6 weeks so when you dial that number the wait time probably is not going to be more than 45 seconds. We are making the effort, and we will continue to make the effort, because it is the right and compassionate thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say in conclusion, we fuss and fight a lot around here, my colleagues. We all know that. Sometimes we embellish a little bit the arguments we make. And sometimes, very usually in a very honest way, we have differences of opinion on legislation and amendments and how you can make a bill a little bit better. We try to always not let the perfect get in the way and destroy the good. And that is the typical process. But in something like this, I think that even though when we passed this bill, so-called in the wee hours of the night in November of 2003, there was bipartisan support. There was a lot of rhetoric back and forth, but in the final analysis there was bipartisan support. It is time for the losing side, if you will, to get over that, to put that behind them, and not to continue to be obstructionists in a program that is a God-send for so many of our seniors and an absolute no-brainer as to whether or not they should sign up. Back then, 2 years ago, you saw Members come to the well and symbolically tear up their AARP card because that organization had the nerve to support a Republican program, or to take that prescription drug discount card, that transitional program, remember my colleagues, where low income seniors got a $600 credit towards the purchase of each of those drugs, for 2 years, $1,200 real money before we got this program up and running January 6? Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were saying, tear up those cards. Well, that is all history. That is all water over the dam, regrettable. But it is definitely time for us to say to our colleagues, put that behind you. It is an election year. We know that. We can fight and fuss over other things. We can try to create wedge issues and play ``gotcha'' and make the other side look bad, and hope we can on our side keep the majority and on your side gain it. That is fine. That is fair. That is what this process is all about. But in a program like this, where we are talking about needy seniors, let's don't play politics with it at all. Let's do the right thing, and the right thing is to get out there, Members, on both sides of the aisle. When you come home late tomorrow night or early Friday morning, have a town hall meeting on Friday, maybe one on Saturday and one on Monday, and tell the seniors, even if you don't think this program is what it should have been and you could have presented a better program, let them know that there is a good benefit here and they need to sign up for it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Resolution 802, encouraging America's seniors to take a serious look at the new prescription drug benefit under Medicare. There is less than one week left before the May 15 deadline, and I want to encourage all seniors to take this hard and thoughtful look to find the program that best fits their needs. There are more than 37 million seniors enjoying the benefit of prescription drug coverage, and I want to share with you some the success stories I have heard from the great state of Georgia. Mary and Jerry O'Brien of Cobb County sent me an e-mail highlighting their success with Medicare part D. Mr. O'Brien wrote, ``I went to Medicare.gov and I found a comparison of various programs. I chose one for my wife for $70 a month which has no deductible. We had no prescription insurance before and find Medicare part D to be very effective. We saved enough on the first prescriptions to pay for two months of premiums. I realize the program got off to a shaky start, but as far as I am concerned, it is now working well.'' Mae Thacker of Kingston, Georgia, and her husband had heard the Medicare benefit was too difficult and wouldn't save them any money. But after learning a little about the program and enrolling, Mae was sold on Medicare part D. She was paying $781 a month for her drugs. Now, Mr. Speaker, with the Medicare part D plan she pays only $178 a month, saving $600 each and every month. Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on highlighting the success stories I have heard from the Eleventh District, but I will just mention quickly an additional two. Lola Squires of Cedartown lives on a fixed income and she qualified for the low income supplement. Last year, her monthly drug bill was $1,016. However, when she got on Medicare part D, she is now paying, guess what, $27 a month, saving more than $900 per month on her medications. Cornelia Kinnebrew of Rome was paying more than $700 a month. Now, with the new drug plan, she pays only $37 a month, saving $600. So, Mr. Speaker, America's seniors should not take my word for it, but listen to their peers and hear what this program is doing for them. Medicare part D is worth looking into. Take the time to call 1-800- Medicare and find out what plan works best for you and your needs, and do it today.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam - ?? Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Davis amendment, which authorizes military doctors to perform abortions at military overseas hospitals. This policy was rejected every year for the last 10 years, and I look forward once more to voting against it. Current law was signed by President Clinton in 1996 and bans the use of military facilities for abortions except in the case of incest, rape or where the life of the mother is at risk. Rest assured, women in the military do have access to the elective medical procedures they want. Therefore, this debate is not about a woman's right to obtain treatment. This debate is about maintaining the principal mission of military medical centers to heal and to protect human life. Madam Chair, this amendment overturns this mission and turns these facilities into abortion clinics at the American taxpayer's expense. I, for one, will not support the use of Federal funds or military hospitals to promote or to perform abortions.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to applaud the United States Senate for bringing to the floor this week three critical pieces of health care legislation. Unfortunately, only one of the three still stands a chance to see an actual up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. The rising cost of health care is an issue the Federal Government can no longer afford to ignore. The Department of Health and Human Services reports the cost of medical liability coverage and defensive medicine alone increases the amount taxpayers must pay for Medicaid, Medicare and other Federal health programs by as much as $56 billion a year. So much more than the increased cost of malpractice premiums is the astronomical cost of defensive medicine. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is seeing, as is every business and State legislature across America, their budget being crowded out by the skyrocketing costs of health care. We no longer have the luxury to pretend that this is not a national crisis, and it demands not only our full attention, but our resolve to find real solutions. Each and every year, the House of Representatives has tackled the tough issue of controlling the cost of health care. In this body, we have passed medical malpractice liability three times in the last 2 years. Each and every time, that piece of legislation has fallen victim to the inaction of the Senate, and each year our health care crisis continues to grow. When someone we love brings a child into this world, we do not thank a trial lawyer for his hard work. When a family member is admitted to the emergency room after a heart attack, we do not feel relieved that there was a trial lawyer close by. And yet unless we do something soon to fix our medical liability system, we might discover it is far easier to find a lawyer in our community than to find a doctor. Guaranteeing all Americans access to quality health care should be what drives this debate. Just think: The best medical care in the world goes to waste if there are not doctors in our community to deliver it. There are many stories, Mr. Speaker, too numerous to tell, of quality physicians hanging up their stethoscopes to pursue other careers. When they are faced with soaring medical malpractice premiums and decreasing reimbursement, the best and the brightest are pursuing other career paths. Ask your neighborhood physician if they would encourage their children to follow in their footsteps and to become a doctor. All too often you would get a resounding ``no.'' Unfortunately, there were not enough Senators yesterday who stood on the side of patients. There were not enough Senators yesterday who put quality health care above partisan politics. Once again, sensible medical malpractice reform legislation died in the Senate. This sensible legislation is based on a proven system that is saving health care in Texas. H.R. 5, the Health Act, common-sense reform legislation for which I was the lead sponsor last year in this House is also based on a successful reform model from the State of California, that was enacted in 1978, called MICRA. What we know, looking at these precedents is that reform works. Mr. Speaker, look at the medical malpractice premiums in 2003 for OB/GYNs in two different cities. In San Francisco, a city in a reform State, California, an average OB/GYN physician would pay $40,000 a year for an annual policy. However, an OB/GYN physician practicing in Chicago, Illinois, a nonreform State, would pay an annual premium of $139,000. This is not a situation that can be righted overnight, but there are sensible reforms that provide necessary steps to transform the American health care system, and medical malpractice reform is certainly one of them. Mr. Speaker, another good step towards transforming health care is Senate bill 1955, which the Senate is currently debating. The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act is legislation that is similar to H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, that we passed in this body. This bill was introduced by Representative Sam Johnson, and as I say, it passed the House last year. This legislation will reduce the cost of health benefits for small business and the self-employed by establishing the new national Association Health Plans, or AHPs, as they are known. AHPs currently exist, but they are severely hampered by the administrative burden and the high cost of having to comply with 50 different sets of State insurance laws and regulations. These barriers have made it virtually impossible to start new plans, and they have forced many of these plans to close, thus greatly limiting the availability of affordable health insurance to small businesses. Allowing an environment that will permit association or small business health plans to flourish will strengthen our health insurance markets by creating greater competition and more choices of health plans for small business. Greater competition will benefit consumers by driving down premiums and expanding access to coverage. H.R. 525 is just another example of House Republicans showing the American people they get it done when it comes to healthcare reform. In regards to decreasing the cost of health care, expanding private insurance coverage to all Americans, and increasing the quality of the healthcare delivery system; patients across our country deserve our undivided attention and it's time for the Senate to act, or stand accountable.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Buyer, Chairman Chabot, Chairman Miller, Mr. Reyes, and all of the Members that have brought forth this bill, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that we would need this kind of a bill, but we do know what is going on. You have heard that from the other Members that have spoken. It is unbelievable that people would trample on the families of these fallen soldiers during such a sensitive time. In my district, Mr. Speaker, had they showed up at the funeral of Justin Johnston or Paul Saylors or Lieutenant Tyler Brown, who was buried at Arlington, I am sure those families would have had a lot of difficulty restraining themselves, as would this Member. I think we need to pay tribute, of course, to the Patriot Guard riders who have been keeping these people away from the funeral sites until this legislation has its intended effect. This bill to pass today is going to require 66 percent vote of this body. I think it will get 100 percent.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Mother's Day. I know there must be people out there, who, like me, are looking for a last minute gift for their mothers, and I have a great suggestion. If your mother or father, and Father's Day is coming up soon too, if either of them is a senior, you can give them the gift of health by helping them enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan. The initial enrollment period for Medicare part D ends next Monday, May 15, the day after Mother's Day. That means seniors have less than a week remaining to enroll in a plan and be guaranteed the lowest premiums and the most savings. Already, more than 30 million seniors have enrolled, and those seniors are saving an average of $1,100 a year on their medications. A recent survey showed that 90 percent of seniors say their plan is convenient to use, and 85 percent say their plan is affordable and covers the medicines that they need. As a physician, I know if seniors can't afford their medication, they will go without to the detriment of their health. After years of promises, Mr. Speaker, President Bush and this Republican Congress have finally delivered on prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Now, in this final week, I encourage all seniors to sign up and start saving.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, I want to thank my chairman for his support on this amendment. And the amendment, I want to commit it to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because it is in the spirit of this legislation, which is a bipartisan bill that we worked diligently on, and I again congratulate Chairman Dreier and my colleagues on the Rules Committee that brought forth this legislation. And I ask for support of the amendment. I have no other speakers, Mr. Chairman. And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for supporting the amendment. And again, I have no additional speakers at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) for supporting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me thank Chairman Dreier for this commonsense piece of legislation in regard to the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. We worked diligently with three separate hearings in the Rules Committee, 12 to 14 hours of testimony; and I think we have struck the exact right balance in regard to this legislation. I am proudly supporting this bill. I do have an amendment, and it is a very commonsense amendment. This was brought out during the course of these hearings, but basically what the amendment does is apply the same rules to leadership PACs as exist now in regard to campaign committee funds. I think you all know, my colleagues, certainly Mr. Chairman knows that Members, when they leave this body, certainly as they are continuing to serve, cannot use any campaign funds for personal use. When they leave this body, if they happen to have a balance, which in some cases they do and have done in the past, then that cannot in any way, shape or form be converted to personal use. But when this law was passed back in the early 1980s and sort of finalized in 1989, shortly after which a lot of Members left so they could be grandfathered and be able to keep those balances, there were not many leadership PACs. But we know today there are a lot of leaders in this place, and a lot of folks do have leadership PACs. In some instances we are talking about balances, cash on hand of six and maybe even seven figures. So basically what this amendment does, and it is really quite simple, the same rules that apply to campaign committees would apply to leadership PACs. And I would commit that amendment to my colleagues and to the chairman and ask for its support.

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

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to raise awareness of a problem that is plaguing our health care system, and that is the number of uninsured Americans. It has been estimated that more than 45 million lack health insurance. However, it is important for understand for us to understand better who the individuals are that make up that 45 million. A census taken in 2003 reveals that almost one-third of the uninsured, 15 million, live in households with annual incomes above $50,000. 7.6 million of these individuals live in households with incomes of more than $75,000. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, 18 million of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34. Obviously, many of these are uninsured as a matter of choice. They choose not to have coverage, because health insurance in this country is prohibitively expensive and it is not a purchase they wish to make, either because they are young and healthy or because they are willing to roll the dice and take their chances, or, if their employer cannot afford to offer insurance, the regulations on the individual insurance market make purchasing a policy on their own prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House has shown the American people how health care can be made more affordable in this country. There are three fundamental avenues that take significant steps toward allowing all Americans to be able to afford health insurance. The first is Association Health Plans, or AHPs. The House of Representatives last year passed H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This bill will reduce the cost of health benefits for small businesses and the self-employed by establishing new national Association Health Plans. AHPs currently exist, but they are severely hampered by the administrative burden and high costs of having to comply with 50 different sets of State insurance mandates and regulations. These barriers have made it virtually impossible to start new plans and have forced many of these plans to close, thus greatly limiting the availability of affordable health insurance to our small businessmen and women. H.R. 525 will strengthen health insurance markets by creating greater competition and more choices of health plans for small businesses. Greater competition will benefit consumers by bringing premiums down and expanding access to coverage. The bill provides AHPs with the opportunity to offer fully insured health plan options under a uniform set of rules across State lines so it will actually expand opportunities for insurance companies to serve these small businesses. Mr. Speaker, the second avenue that will allow more Americans to purchase health insurance are through health savings accounts. They were established by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Health savings accounts allow Americans to put aside tax-free dollars with a maximum annual contribution to pay for their health care needs. These accounts are combined with high-deductible health insurance policies that cover both preventative services as well as catastrophic coverage; and these accounts, Mr. Speaker, grow with the miracle of compound interest. In 2 years, over 3 million individuals have enrolled in HSAs; and the number of Americans projected to enroll by the year 2010 increases to, get this, 29 million. In addition, more than one-third of HSA purchasers last year actually had incomes under $50,000; and one-third of individual HSA purchasers last year were previously in the rolls of the uninsured. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced his plans to build and expand upon those early successes by giving Americans who purchase HSAs the same tax advantage given to employer-sponsored health insurance plans. This is a huge boost for those Americans who are self- employed, unemployed, or they work for companies that do not offer health insurance. It levels the playing field and increases the number of individuals and families with coverage. Mr. Speaker, the last solution of reducing the number of uninsured Americans is called community health centers. They are vital to enhance medical care in poor communities, where access to regular care is often hardest to come by and where basic primary and preventative services can do an enormous amount to raise standards of living and well-being. With the support given by the Federal Government over the last several years, our community health centers now have capacity to serve more than 3.5 million additional Americans, with nearly 2 million more served in the next 2 years. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not national health insurance that we need; and I think I heard one of my colleagues on the other side at the start of these 5 minutes describe that and recommend it. But, as can you see, the leadership in the House of Representatives, we take seriously our responsibility to allow all Americans to purchase health insurance. But our job is not done until all Americans enjoy the comfort and the security of health care insurance.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share yet another Medicare part D success story. My colleagues might have noticed that I am sharing a different success story each week, which is pretty easy to do because the stories just keep rolling in. This week I would like to tell you about Mae Thacker of Bartow County, Georgia. Mae and her husband came into my office unhappy. They had heard some disparaging things about Medicare part D and weren't sure if the program would even save them any money. Fortunately, the more the Thackers learned about part D, the more they wanted to enroll, another case of reality trumping rhetoric. I am happy to report that Mae Thacker is now signed up for a prescription drug plan, and her monthly medicine bill has dropped from $780 to $180. Mr. Speaker, the May 15 enrollment deadline is less than 2 weeks away. Enrolled seniors are saving an average of $1,100 a year with Medicare part D, $3,700 a year for low-income seniors. So my message to seniors is this: Sign up now and start saving.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Ft. Worth. I guess I have run my Dallas-Ft. Worth together. But the gentleman has done a great job in working with us on this time, and I appreciate his comments tonight as well. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about extending the deadline to say, well, you know, we don't need to be penalizing seniors if they don't sign up in time, and that is something that hopefully we will have an opportunity tonight to talk a little bit about. At this point I am going to call on my good friend and teammate on the Republican baseball team, hopefully again this year, and I am talking about the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, who is also a member of the Ways and Means Committee. And I will tell you, my colleagues, you know, that is so important because the Health Subcommittee on Ways and Means is where these issues relating to Medicare are ironed out before they come to the general membership, to the floor. And the expertise in that committee level is so strong, and so it is wonderful to have Melissa Hart with us tonight. And I would like to turn the mike over to her at this time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, thank you so much. It is great to be here again tonight talking to my colleagues as part of the Republican health care public affairs team, and I am pleased that a number of my colleagues will be joining me, hopefully, during the hour, and we will be hearing from them later. Madam Speaker, I ask this question. If there was a way to save more than $1,000 a year on your heating bill or your food costs or car payments, you would want to know about it, right? I know that my colleagues, I think on both sides of the aisle, would definitely want to know. Well, seniors are saving an average of $1,100 a year on prescription drug costs with the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, $3,700 a year for those low-income seniors who qualify for supplemental help. For many seniors, Medicare Part D marks the first time that they have been able to afford the medications that they need to stay well. For many more, Medicare Part D means they will not have to choose between their medications and other necessities like food and housing costs. Madam Speaker, I wanted to start out by going through a couple of these slides and pointing out some of the statistics that really just literally jump off the page at you. More than 30 million seniors now have coverage under Medicare Part D. These are our latest statistics. More than 30 million. There are about 43 million Medicare beneficiaries, mostly because of age 65, and maybe 6 million of those because of a disability at a young age. But when you look at here, and we have not even reached at that magic date yet in this first year, that more than 30 million now have coverage, it is an amazing success story. And continuing that success story, pharmacists in this country are filling 3 million Medicare part D prescriptions a day. That is 3 million times a day that seniors are saving with prescription drug coverage. And many of these seniors were paying sticker price until they finally had the opportunity to save under this great addition to the Medicare program. Seniors, as I said, are saving an average of $1,100 a month. And $1,100 a month is a great number and a great benefit in itself, and this is on average, but low-income seniors, of course, are paying now, under this program, $1 for a generic drug and up to $5 for brand name as a copay, and that is it. That is it. Let's say you are on 5 prescription drugs, and they are filled on a monthly basis, usually a 30-day supply. That is $5 a month, or $60 a year. And I don't want you to just take Congressman Dr. Gingrey's word for that, my colleagues. We have some stories, some anecdotes, to share with you, some actual patients that want to tell you more about that in these following charts. In fact, some of those very seniors are going to be up here on the Hill tomorrow for a press conference, and we will hear it directly from them. I look forward to that, and I hope many of my colleagues will have an opportunity to attend that press conference. Well, the newspapers, sometimes we wonder if they give the facts as we know them. I want to share with you on this next slide some of the newspapers and what they are finally saying now that we are about 3 weeks away from May 15. And of course we all know that this bill was passed by this Congress, actually the 108th Congress, in November of 2003, and we have gone through the transition program with the Medicare prescription discount cards, where seniors were definitely saving money. Indeed, the low-income seniors got a $600 credit each of the 2 years. It wasn't quite 2 years, but for each of the 12-month increments they got a $600 credit, and then as we rolled into the actual insurance program January 1 of this year. But listen to what the Washington Times is saying now. ``Even with the myriad prescription drug plans open to beneficiaries, seniors are not overburdened by choice, two recent surveys demonstrate. The surveys, sponsored by America's health insurance plans, show that of seniors who signed up for the Medicare drug benefit, the vast majority, 84 percent, had no difficulty, no difficulty, enrolling. And finding the right plan is worth the effort of shopping around, two-thirds said. For those who were automatically enrolled, 90 percent had little difficulty receiving their prescription drugs.'' The ones that were automatically enrolled, of course, were those seniors that we refer to as either dual-eligible, in other words, they are on Medicare and the State Medicaid because of their low-income situation, or their income is maybe not low enough to qualify for the Medicaid, but the State helps them pay their deductibles and copay under Medicare. All of those seniors, if they didn't sign up, they were automatically enrolled. Now, listen to what The New York Times says, and this New York Times is not the bastion of conservatism, of course, as we know. ``Many seniors are clearly saving money on drug purchases. Complaints and call waiting times are diminishing, and many previously uninsured patients are clearly saving money on drug purchases.'' That was in an editorial in The New York Times on April 3, so just a couple or 3 weeks ago. Well, I said at the outset, Madam Speaker, that I would be joined by some of my colleagues on the Republican health care public affairs team. We have a great group of Members who have expertise not only on this issue, but a lot of issues that we are taking the leadership on in regard to health care in this country, whether we are talking about leveling the playing field in regard to civil justice, so-called medical tort system; or whether we are talking about passing, as we have done so many times under this Republican leadership in this body, something that is referred to as association health plans, which allow small companies who really cannot afford to purchase health insurance for their employees when their numbers are small, 5, 10, 15 employees, to come together in a group and enjoy that benefit of purchasing a policy that is affordable to their employees, health savings accounts; or our initiative on electronic medical recordkeeping and reduction of medical errors, Madam Speaker. All of these things this Republican leadership is leading the way on, leading the charge on, and I am very proud to have some of my colleagues with me tonight. And especially am I proud to yield time to my colleague from the great State of Georgia, who just happens also to be a physician Member, and I am proud of that as well. And at this point I would like to turn over the mike to my good friend and colleague, Dr. Representative Tom Price.

Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Price, thank you so much for those comments. They are very accurate and very timely. I know one thing that Representative Price mentioned about this deadline, and of course it is approaching. We are 3 weeks away. Of course, a 6-month window of opportunity that started November 15, and we have been doing town hall meetings, of course, since long before that and letting people know. I think there has been a tremendous amount of information both from the Committee on Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS we call it, the Social Security department, and senior organizations in each community, in every county, in every State in this Nation have been making sure that this information gets out there. But, still, as we get down to the wire, we have some seniors, unfortunately there may be as many as 8 million, that could still sign up for this benefit. And while some of them clearly will choose not to, because it is an optional plan, we don't want to miss the opportunity of those in that group who are a part of that low-income portion, Madam Speaker, because, as I have said many times from the well of this House floor, for them it is not only a no-brainer, it is a godsend. So that is why we continue to have these Special Orders. That is why the leadership, our Speaker, our majority leader, our conference chairwoman Representative Deborah Pryce, wants us to come down and spend this hour, and allows us to do this, and as Congressman Price was just saying, to talk to Members on both sides of the aisle, because this is not the time to politic over this. This is the time to get the policy right. So that is really what we are about. Again as I predicted at the outset, I would be joined by my colleagues on the health care public affairs team, not the least of which is my cochair. And I would like to call on him. I would like to say a word or two about Representative and Dr. Tim Murphy from the great State of Pennsylvania. He is a clinical psychologist, a teacher and an author of several books. He has taken a leadership role not only in the overall committee that we cochair, but also especially on the issue of electronic medical recordkeeping and reduction of medical errors and saving lives and saving money. That is something that both Dr. Murphy and former Speaker Newt Gingrich have written a book on. We can talk about that later as we get beyond May 15, but at this time I yield to Mr. Murphy.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank Dr. Murphy, and really among the many important points that you made, there is one that I would like to elaborate on before turning to our next speaker, and that was this issue that Dr. Murphy mentioned in regard to seniors buying their drugs from Canada, and in some instances not knowing if they were actually coming from Canada. But I think all of our colleagues understand why they found the need to do that; and our colleague, well, three on our side of the aisle in particular, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), spent many hours in this Chamber during Special Orders, talking about the fact that seniors were having to pay so much more in this country for prescription drugs than they could get from north of our border. And in many instances, most instances, the exact same product safely packaged. And who could blame them because what has been happening, until we finally came forward and delivered on this promise after so many years of prior administrations and other leadership on the other side of the aisle and other Presidents, we finally delivered. This is what has happened. Let me just give a quick summary of some of this before we turn to my good friend from Texas. In Minnesota, while enrollment in the Medicare drug benefit rose by 9 percent last month, sales of low-cost Canadian drugs fell by 52 percent. Listen to what a State health official says in Minnesota. State officials say that it is impossible to say for sure why sales of Canadian mail order drugs fell to $39,000 this March, the least since that State's program's first month in February 2004. The State actually had a program to help seniors buy from Canada. There could be lots of reasons, they say, but the Medicare drug program probably is one of them. That was by a spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services in Minnesota which operates Rx Connects. I just want to say to my colleagues that we are pushing so hard for what we refer to as reimportation, making that legal, and while certainly no one has ever been prosecuted for purchasing in that fashion, my feeling all along was when we passed this bill, as we did in November of 2003, Medicare modernization with a prescription drug benefit, the seniors are going to see those prices fall to the point that they will not have to literally take that chance on breaking the law, but, more importantly, risking the possibility that they will be getting some knock-off drug or something that is lower quality or not the right dosage. This is what has happened. I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and others may not completely agree with me and I understand that, but hopefully we will be able to take that argument off the table as this program matures, and I feel confident that is going to happen. At this time, I call on the gentleman from Texas, who is not only my physician colleague and part of this health care team, but he is also an OB-GYN specialist, as I am. I do not think he has delivered quite as many babies as I have, but he constantly reminds me he is not as old as I am either. At this time, I yield to Doctor and Congressman Mike Burgess from Dallas, Texas.

Mr. GINGREY. And as I said, premiums, Madam Speaker, a third lower than expected. Even the cost, the overall cost, we got some conflicting numbers back towards the end of 2003 when we were debating and finally passing this bill. The first number, of course, was it was going to cost $450 billion over 10 years extra Medicare spending. Then the number went up to $750 billion. We now know that the cost is going to be lower than those numbers, and probably a lot lower because as we crunch these numbers, the Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management and Budget, they do what we call static scoring. And as my colleagues earlier were talking about, and I think Dr. Burgess in particular, Madam Speaker, no credit is given for the fact that when our seniors, my mom and others, can afford to take these prescription drugs and lower that blood pressure, lower that cholesterol, lower that blood sugar, then they are not going to need the expensive benefits of Part A and Part B, whether it is a long stay in the hospital or in the intensive care unit, even more expensive; or on the operating table, having a leg amputated; coronaries; bypass; or maybe even in a worse situation of high blood pressure, having a stroke and spending the rest of their lives in a nursing home covered by Medicare or maybe Medicaid. Who wants that if they can avoid it by spending less money on Part D and preventing this from happening in the first place? So we shift costs, and we do not get any credit for that in this so- called static scoring that goes on around here, but we should be getting a lot of credit for it. And I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand this. But despite it, there are Democrats in this Congress and liberal groups like Families USA and MoveOn.org who are continuing to play politics with our seniors' health, holding town hall meetings to encourage seniors not to enroll. Not to enroll. I thought they would get over the fact that somebody licked the red off their candy or they lost their marbles in a playground game and all of a sudden wanted to pick up and go home. I remember 1 year ago or 1\1/2\ years ago seeing Members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, coming down and literally making a big show out of tearing up their AARP card because this wonderful senior organization of 35 million, of which I am a proud member, had the audacity, audacity, to endorse something that the Republicans, Madam Speaker, had put forward for our seniors. And I guess the frustration of the other side when they had control of this place for 40 years and never could deliver on this promise, I guess it does grate at you a little bit. But I want them to get over it, I really do, and get on board, because we need to let seniors know, more than a few who have not yet signed up, that let us get this done in the next 3 weeks. And there is a deadline, and, yes, there is a penalty if you do not sign up by the deadline. All we hear by the other side is to extend the deadline. You just need to give them 6 more months or 6 more years. I do not know what they want. But I know this: This Member has a bad habit of procrastinating, and if I did not have a deadline, if there was not a final deadline of getting your income tax return in every year, I would not do it. And that is just human nature. We have to realize that there is a time certain, and if you sign up late and expect to come into the program and pay the same premium, it is not fair, particularly if during that interim you went from being on no medications and would cost the program very little, and all of a sudden when you have that angina, as we call it, chest pain, and you realize you are now on five medications and you want to hurry up and sign up for the program, that is not fair to the others because, after all, this is an insurance program and it is pooled and that is the way we keep costs down. So I think it absolutely makes sense to get everybody signed up by the deadline, which is fast approaching. Madam Speaker, it has, as always, been a pleasure to have the opportunity to be given by our leadership, by Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader Boehner and our conference chairman, Deborah Pryce, to spend this hour with my colleagues talking about something that is so important. And if we can ever in this body, and I know we can, put policy ahead of politics and realize that we can work together in a bipartisan way when we have got something that clearly is a tremendous benefit to our seniors, let us all pull together. When we go home tomorrow, if we have got some time on Friday, or Monday before we come back to Washington, let us all have town hall meetings and workshops and computers and pharmacists there and vendors and maybe some health screening kiosk as well, and help our seniors take advantage of this great benefit.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. And I want to comment, too, that I said at the outset that the work that she does on the Ways and Means Committee with Health Subcommittee Chairwoman Nancy Johnson from Connecticut and Chairman Thomas and other members of that committee where all this great work is done. One of the concerns, Madam Speaker, was that the pharmaceutical companies that had these prescription discount programs that they offered not only to needy seniors, but to people of low income at any age, low-income adults. And a lot of concern had been expressed. In fact, the Inspector General had some concerns initially and let the pharmaceutical companies know that maybe they needed to look very carefully at these discount programs because of some antitrust violation or whatever. But the members of the Committee on Ways and Means continued to work through this and to make sure that the pharmaceutical companies understood that they could continue these programs and there would be no violation, there would be no penalties or anything of that nature. And I think this is great because, as Representative Hart was just talking about in regard to that gap in coverage, that does not exist, of course, for our lowest-income seniors who qualify, as she said, for the low-income supplement. No matter how much money they would incur before this program for prescription drugs, they are only going to pay $1 a month for each prescription as a copay for generic. Maybe a little bit more if it is a brand name. But most people in the program do face that gap in coverage where, after the first $2,250, then all of the payment is out of their own pocket until, Madam Speaker, the point when they have actually spent in any one year $3,600, and then after that the benefit is outstanding. In fact, 95 percent of any cost above that amount is paid for by the insurance program and only a 5 percent burden on the patient. So that is a tremendous benefit. But in that gap in coverage, where all of a sudden if somebody reaches that, $2,250 is not the average amount that an individual senior would spend each year on drugs. It is considerably lower than that. It may be closer to $1,400, and they would never get to that point. But some do, and now we know, because of the good work of the Ways and Means Committee, of which Representative Hart is a member, we have worked this out so that the pharmaceutical companies can continue to offer those discount programs and to provide at a very low cost these prescription drugs for those seniors who are getting to that point where it is really going to be difficult for them to stay on their medications. And I commend her for that and I think that was something that was very important. The pharmaceutical industry, the companies, have been attacked so much by the other side of the aisle, and we have heard that over and over and over again, that this is nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and they wrote the bill and the Republicans passed it in the dark of night. We have all heard that to a fare-thee- well. Hopefully, our colleagues will now get on board with us and realize that this is a good bill that is saving money, as Melissa Hart indicated. It is not averaging $40 a month; it is averaging $25 a month, or, in some cases, even less. And there are options, of course, the first option being you do not have to sign up for it if you do not want to or if you have something better. But it has been a godsend for so many. And I thank you so much for being with us tonight, Representative Hart.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a friend and a fellow Georgian Larry Nelson, who, after years of hard work and success, has been elected to the World Golf Hall of Fame this year. Mr. Speaker, I want to call my colleagues' attention to this picture of Larry at my left. Look at that picture-perfect swing. I can only dream about that. Larry Nelson, indeed, is an inspired golfer and an inspirational athlete. Throughout his successful 36-year career, Larry has risen to the top of his game, and he has remained there while racking up victory after victory. In the last 32 years on the PGA and the Champions tours, Larry has won 10 events, including 3 majors. His career is highlighted by his PGA championships in 1981, 1987, and his 1983 win at the United States Open. He is also a three-time member of the U.S. Ryder Cup team. Larry's place among golf's greatest is well deserved. During the earlier part of his career in the 1980s, there were only three other golfers besides Larry who managed to win three major tournaments: Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson, and Seve Ballesteros. Larry Nelson undoubtedly belongs with these legends of golf. We often hear of self-made men, and Larry is certainly one of them. Mr. Speaker, as a sergeant in the United States Army during the Vietnam conflict, golf was not even a blip on his radar screen. In fact, he said he thought it was a game for sissies. Indeed. But upon his return to the States from Vietnam, Larry found himself drawn to golf. One day he noticed a golf center across the street from the Lockheed Martin plant in my hometown where he worked. Thus, the Sam Snead Golf Center in Marietta, Georgia, became the first training ground for his new passion. For Larry, golf came naturally. He broke 100 on his first round. That is a little discouraging to me, Mr. Speaker. In this recent time in the district, I found one day to go out on the golf course, and I don't think I broke 150. But Larry broke 100 on that very first round, and enjoyed it. He said this many times, he enjoyed dedicating himself to the techniques and strategy of the game. Indeed, the qualities that it takes for victory and success, that determination and the hard work, that has to be put in every day. As Larry told the Atlanta Journal- Constitution, ``I fell in love with it, and I got better every day.'' His humbleness aside, Larry was dedicated to his game, and he worked hard to achieve those goals. He graduated from qualifying school in 1973; and by 1979, just 6 years later, he had already won his first PGA tour victory, capturing the Jackie Gleason Inverrary Classic. Larry Nelson's career saw some amazing highlights. In 2000, he finished number one on the tour. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, he finished number one on the tour, and he was named the Champions Tour Player of the Year. Larry won a total of 19 tournaments; and, listen to this, he finished second 24 times. Just think about how difficult that is, to finish second in a major tournament. He was never one to brag about his accomplishments, but anyone who looks at Larry Nelson's career knows that it has been outstanding. Mr. Speaker, when Larry is inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in St. Augustine this October, he will assume his place among golf's greatest. This is the 11th year Larry has been on the Hall of Fame ballot, and I know many golf lovers join me in saying it is about time. I am so pleased Larry's accomplishments are receiving the distinction that they so much deserve. Larry Nelson's life and career serve as an inspiration to all of us in any walk of life, an inspiration to pursue new interests and work to achieve the highest levels of success through faith in one's God-given talents, and Larry indeed has that gift. When he was recently asked about how much longer he would be a golfer, Larry replied that he will keep playing as long as he enjoys it. Knowing Larry's love for the game, I predict we will get to see his successes for some time to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Larry Nelson on his past accomplishments and his present induction into the Golf Hall of Fame.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the Special Order time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share yet another success story from a senior who is saving money with Medicare prescription drug coverage. These stories are plentiful, and it is important we share them with the American people so seniors will know the truth. They could be saving thousands of dollars a year with Medicare part D. Mrs. Cornelia Kinnebrew lives in Rome, Georgia, in my district. Like many seniors, Ms. Kinnebrew's medication costs were astronomical. She was paying more than $700 a month for her drugs, a huge portion of her monthly budget. Well, after contacting my office, Ms. Kinnebrew is signed up for a Medicare prescription drug plan. We discovered that she qualified for the additional help available to our low-income seniors, and I am incredibly pleased to report that now, with Medicare part D, Cornelia Kinnebrew pays only $37 a month for her prescription drugs. That is a savings of nearly $700 every month. Madam Speaker, the initial enrollment deadline for Medicare part D is May 15. With 3 weeks left to sign up, it is extremely important we put people over politics and help ensure all seniors have the opportunity to enroll. My message to seniors is this: with Medicare part D, the D stands for delivers. The President and this Republican-led Congress have done just that. Take advantage of it.