Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of effective immigration reform and with a sense of urgency that Congress must act decisively to secure our borders and control illegal immigration. Every day we put off sending the President border security legislation simply allows more opportunity for illegal immigrants to break our laws and cross our borders. America must not continue to be a foster home for those who deliberately break the law. Rather, we must be a Nation that respects law and encourages safe and legal immigration. The burden of illegal immigration is increasing daily for American citizens as hospitals and schools are filled with illegal immigrants who cannot pay for their education or their medical expenses. Indeed, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and as long as our Nation continues to turn a blind eye, illegal immigrants have all the incentives in the world to risk their lives crossing our border. As the Senate deliberates their approach to reform, I believe we in the House need to continue to emphasize border security first and foremost, our opposition to amnesty, and support for a national guest worker program that treats those seeking jobs here as exactly that, guests not citizens.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say I thank the gentleman, and I think the seniors are very fortunate, whether Mark Kennedy is serving in this United States House of Representatives or representing them in the other body soon as a senator in the United States Senate. They are indeed fortunate to have his compassion and caring attitude, and I commend him for that. Mr. Speaker, I think what I would like to do here for a minute is sort of frame this problem, before we delivered on this prescription drug benefit, to make sure that our colleagues and anybody within shouting or listening distance might possibly be watching our proceedings tonight, did they understand the situation that existed before we delivered on this promise of a prescription drug benefit part D under the Medicare program. Where were the seniors getting their prescription drug coverage before this plan? Well, this first slide, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues can see this. There were a number of people. This is about 26 percent, an estimate of seniors that had employment-based plans. We talked about that. We have talked about the fact that people worked 25, 30 years for a company, and part of their retirement benefit may be a little pension hopefully and a little health care benefit, in many cases to include a prescription drug coverage. Now, there has been concern among these 26 percent because even before we brought forward this well-conceived, well-thought-out plan, in fact it was thought out pretty well, as I pointed out earlier on March 9, 2000, by President Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the Senate. They just did not deliver on it, but the 26 percent were concerned because employers were dropping these plans or changing the guidelines. All of a sudden a senior gets a letter in the mail, and it says, oh, by the way, first of the year, you are going to have to pay, instead of 20 percent of the premium, you are going to have to pay 30, and oh, by the way, it is no longer going to cover prescription drugs or we have got a very limited formulary; it is not going to cover your hearing aid or your eyeglasses or whatever or even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, would be the ultimate dear John letter. That is a letter, that pink slip, that says, guess what, we are dropping your coverage; we are going to completely drop your prescription coverage or may, in fact, drop the whole health insurance coverage, and this has happened. It was happening, and under this plan, though, to prevent that, to try to stop that, we, in designing this plan, this Republican majority, this President, under our leadership, we said, look, we will help you, John Q. Employer, if you will continue these plans and you will not renege on these promises. We will reimburse you, really, for some of the cost of those plans so that you do not drop them. Again, I go back to my Clinton press release. One of the things that they called for in 2000, optional of course for all beneficiaries as we said earlier, but also provides financial incentives for employers to develop and retain their retiree health coverage. That is what Clinton and the Democrats called for. This is another thing that they have been railing against, the fact that we have incentivized these employers not to drop these plans. Well, okay, 26 percent have employment-based plans. Three percent individually purchase policies. That would be like my mom, Helen Gingrey, my precious mom who has a medigap policy, but now, unfortunately, the prescription part of that was so expensive that she had to drop it. Of course, the Department of Veterans Affairs and TRICARE, we talked about that. That is about 3 percent. About 12 percent are covered by the State Medicaid program. Some are more generous than others, I think very generous in my State of Georgia, and then some other State-based programs and other sources, 6 percent. But the real eye-opener on this chart, on this pie graph, is that 40 percent before this plan, 40 percent were getting prescription drug coverage out of their own pocket. In other words, they had no coverage, and they had no bargaining power, Mr. Speaker. They simply went to the drugstore and they paid sticker price, you know, like buying an automobile and not getting any discount because you did not know to ask for one. They had no clout, one individual and elderly, frail senior, and so they were paying sticker price, and that was the problem. That is why we knew that we had to do something, especially for the neediest, especially for those who literally were breaking pills, running out of medication, not going to the drugstore because they are embarrassed that they could not pay. It is an act of compassion on our part, really, for the neediest seniors especially, and of course, now, the good news is that, and this next slide shows, a total of 27 million seniors now have coverage under Medicare Part D. I see that the gentlewoman from Virginia has been kind enough to stay with us, despite the lateness of the hour, and I want to yield a little time to her and maybe we can get engaged in a little bit of a colloquy in talking about the some of the things that we both notice in our district.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Murphy, thank you so much for that and for your insights. As I was standing here listening to Mr. Murphy, I cannot help but, Mr. Speaker, wanting to go back just for a moment to this press release of March 9, 2000, from the Bill Clinton White House. There were a couple of things that I did not mention that I want to read to you before we yield to Representative Drake. In this press release it says, and this is one of the bullet points, ``Consistent with broader reform. The addition of a Medicare drug benefit should be considered as part of an overall plan to strengthen and modernize Medicare. Medicare will face the same demographic strain as Social Security when the baby boom generation retires. Improving benefits is only one step in preparing Medicare for this new century's challenges.'' I will say one thing about the Democrats, they are pretty consistent because they opposed any changes to Social Security as well. In fact, this is exactly what they called for but, once again, as I said at the outset, they could not deliver and it is killing them. But unfortunately, their continuing rhetoric runs the risk of killing some of our seniors, the six or so million of them, who need this benefit. And it is just shameful. Shameless, as Garth Brooks sings the title of one of my favorite songs. But they keep on. But hopefully maybe over the next couple of weeks, maybe during this 2-week recess they will get religion. It is certainly a time for religion. And they will understand that it is time to stop playing footsie with our seniors and misleading them and trying to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure at this time to introduce my colleague for her remarks, the gentlewoman from the Second District of Virginia (Mrs. Drake). She is a freshman but you would not know that. Her experience and the things that she has done in a short period of time in this body, on our side of the aisle, has just been amazing. She is a member of the House Armed Service Committee. She is passionate about veterans health care and health care for our military. So it is indeed an honor to have Representative Drake with us tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy, of course, to be here tonight to take this leadership hour and talk about something that is really near and dear to my heart but, more importantly, near and dear to the hearts of 41, 42 million seniors in this country who finally, because of the leadership of this Congress, the Republican leadership and this President, have delivered on a promise that was made years ago. And that delivery, I know a lot about them because as an OB/GYN physician before coming to Congress, I delivered 5,200 babies, but this may be the best delivery that I have ever been a part of, Mr. Speaker, and that is delivering, as I say, on a promise made by former Congresses and other Presidents over the 45-year history of the Medicare program, which was introduced in 1965 with no prescription drug benefit. And what we have done here is add part D, the ``D'' for ``drugs'' or, if you want, the ``delivery'' that we have finally provided to our American seniors. This prescription drug benefit is a wonderful thing, and, of course, we are going to talk about that tonight. I have a number of my colleagues that have joined me, and we will be getting information from them, from their districts. We will be engaging in colloquy as we go through the hour, Mr. Speaker, talking about the success stories because we do not want to stand up here for an hour and expect people to take our word for this. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we hear from our seniors, whether they are from the 11th District of Georgia that I represent or whether they are from the gentlewoman's Virginia District, Representative Thelma Drake, who is here with us, and others. But when we passed this bill in November of 2003 and the President signed it into law shortly thereafter in December, we had so much criticism from the other side of the aisle, it was really amazing. Of course, maybe I could understand the politics of it back then because we had finally delivered on a promise that maybe they had made and not delivered on. But we are into the sign-up period, and, in fact, May 15, after that date there is a penalty for late signing up, and yet the other side is still discouraging the 8 million that have not yet signed up. And that is, Mr. Speaker, I think just so disappointing. I have heard for the last 1\1/2\ years the criticism from the Democrats about this program being nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, that the program was designed by them, that the government cannot negotiate price controls. Well, I want to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Virginia. Listen to this: on March 9, 2000, the Clinton White House released the following ``united vision for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit.'' Many parts of this vision closely mirror the Republican-passed plan that the Democrats have been opposing and criticizing for a 1\1/2\ years. And I take this text that I am going to read directly from the Clinton White House Web site. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary: ``President Clinton and Senate Democrats unified in vision for new Medicare prescription drug benefit for immediate release March the 9th, 2000. Senate Democrats agree on principles for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Today Senator Daschle and the Senate Democratic Caucus released a set of prescription drug principles that will guide the current congressional debate over the provision of a new Medicare prescription drug benefit to millions of seniors. These principles state that any new benefit should be: Number one, voluntary.'' Sound familiar? ``Medicare beneficiaries who now have dependable, affordable coverage should have the option of keeping that coverage. ``Accessible to all beneficiaries.'' Again, sound familiar? ``All seniors and individuals with disabilities, including those in traditional Medicare, should have access to a reliable benefit designed to give beneficiaries meaningful protection and bargaining power. A Medicare drug benefit should help seniors and the disabled with the high cost of prescription drugs and protect against excessive out-of- pocket costs.'' The catastrophic coverage in our plan. ``It should give beneficiaries bargaining power that they lack today and include a defined benefit, assuring access to medically necessary drugs.'' Exactly what this Republican Medicare modernization part D bill does. ``Affordable to all beneficiaries and the program, Medicare should contribute enough towards a prescription drug premium to make it affordable for all beneficiaries. While subsidies should be provided to all to assure the benefit is affordable, low-income beneficiaries should receive extra help with the cost of premium and cost sharing.'' Again, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, does that sound familiar? That is exactly what this bill does. Let me continue because this is just so instructive. Again, this is the Bill Clinton Presidency and Democratic Congress plan back in 2000. ``Administered using private sector entities and competitive purchasing techniques. Discounts should be achieved through competition, not regulation or price controls.'' They have been griping about this for 1\1/2\ years, and their plan calls for private competition and no price controls. It should mirror practices employed by private insurers in delivering prescription drugs. Private organizations should negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and handle the day-to-day administrative responsibilities of the benefit.'' That is exactly what this plan does and what they have been railing about, again, for the past year-and-a- half. So hypocritical, it is unbelievable. So I just wanted to bring this press release, this Clinton press release, and show you that the Democrats really wanted to do this, but they couldn't deliver. They could not deliver on the goods, and they can't stand it. They literally cannot stand the fact that this President, who they despise, who they detest, and this Republican leadership, who has been in control of this Congress for the last 12 years and is delivering, is getting things done, is not just simply sitting back and throwing bricks and screaming and hollering. And as we get closer and closer to the deadline, the rhetoric will continue to increase. Well, I just wanted to start the hour, Mr. Speaker, certainly not on a negative tone, because we are very positive about this. I personally as a physician Member am extremely excited that we are leaving tomorrow, most of us will be leaving tomorrow, to go back to our districts for a 2-week work period. I am told by our Conference chairperson, the gentlelady from Ohio, Deborah Pryce, that the Republicans, the 231 of us in this body, have scheduled over 200 town hall meetings over this 10-day period while we go back home and work for our seniors, not against our seniors. I am excited about it, because I have four of those 200 scheduled in my district, and I am really looking forward to it and looking forward to help get those few, I think I said at the outset that some 27 million of 41 million eligible have now signed up, probably 5 or 6 million of those who have not already have a drug plan. We understand that. They have a plan, whether it is TRICARE, if they happen to be a veteran, or the widow or widower of a veteran, or they are signed up under a company that they worked many years for and retired with not only health insurance benefits, but a prescription drug coverage. They don't need it. But there are still 6 or 8 million that do, and that is why I am excited to get home and bring the good news to them. At this point I want to yield to my colleagues. We have several with us here on the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is the first to stand, and I want to recognize him. I want to say a little bit about him before I turn the microphone over to Dr. Murphy. Dr. Tim Murphy is a classmate of mine. We came in the 108th Congress. We have served together now for about 3\1/2\ years. He and I actually cochair the Republican Health Care Public Relations Committee. We could probably spend this hour talking about any number of issues regarding health care that the Republicans have done. But we are going to concentrate, as I said at the outset, and talk about this Medicare modernization. We don't want to forget that part, because that is almost as important as the prescription drug part. At this time, I am very proud to yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, Dr. Representative Tim Murphy.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield very quickly to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, my chairman, and I am talking about the gentleman from California, Representative Duncan Hunter. I gladly yield to the chairman.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I thank the gentlewoman, and I know she is looking forward to going back into the 2nd District of Virginia tomorrow, and I am sure she is one of the many Republican Members who have got those town hall meetings scheduled to get those remaining 6 or 8 million signed up, and I thank her. At the outset, I said do not just take our word for it, and I have been expounding a little bit for the last 50 minutes, but I did want to give some anecdotal stories, and let us do that for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Barbara W. From El Mirage, Arizona, had no prescription drug coverage. She spent more than $2,600 a year on medication just this past year. She wanted an inexpensive plan with a low premium, so she did enroll in the part D plan, and it only had a $6.14 monthly premium. In 2006, she will save $1,800, nearly $200 a month, the lady from Arizona. God bless her. Here is another, Mr. Speaker. Sandra S. from Woodland Hills, California. In 2005, she spent $4,600 per year on prescription drugs. She read about Medicare part D in the Los Angeles Times. I am sure they weren't praising it, but thank goodness she read about it. She called 1-800-MEDICARE for help. She wanted a plan with no donut hole. We just talked about that a minute ago. Her plan has a $50 monthly premium, no deductible, no gap in coverage and, of course as all those plans, it has that catastrophic coverage. So that if you really get into a year where you have out-of-pocket expenses of $3,600, out of your own pocket, then after that, the insurance pays 95 percent and you only pay 5 percent. What a godsend. Total savings for Sandra, $2,400 a year. I think we have a couple more that I wanted to show. Barbara L. from Kemp, Texas. In 2005, spent $2,100 on prescription drugs. She enrolled in an AARP part D plan. They have a very good plan. So in 2006 she expects to pay $360. Barbara saved $1,740. Well, I could go on and on, but let me just say one other thing, because I mentioned AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons. I am proudly one of them. I am not retired, but I was eligible and got my card at age 50, so I have had it a while. Thirty-seven million seniors are members. And AARP is not typically a conservative organization, supportive of Republican ideas. More typically, they are supportive of the Democrat line of thought, and yet they have supported this program. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle came down to the well, Member after Member after Member, telling members of AARP to tear up their cards and throw them out the window. Thank God for AARP. In fact, we had a press conference today, Mr. Speaker, talking about the plan and what the Republican Members are going to do when we go back to our districts, and we have 76, count them, 76 organizations that are supporting this program. The AIDS Institute, Alzheimer's Association, American Geriatric Society, American Pharmacists Association, Association of Black Cardiologists, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Alliance For the Mentally Ill, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, and Easter Seals. I could go on and on, but there are 76. Let me talk briefly as we close about groups misleading seniors about Medicare part D. In fact, they were out there protesting our press conference on the terrace of the Cannon Building this afternoon. Guess who was there chanting against seniors? MoveOn.org and far left shadow groups. So let's see. Doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, health care providers and AARP, versus MoveOn.org, Nancy Pelosi, and other far-left groups. Who do you trust with senior health? I think the answer is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and my mother thanks the gentlewoman, but you have made such a great point about the option, and Representative Drake talked about the number of plans in Virginia. It is kind of similar in Georgia. There may be almost 50 plans, but there are only 18 companies. But what that means is companies, good companies, offer more than one plan, so that seniors have the option, as she described, to say, well, if somebody says well I do not need that, I have got the Methuselah gene, that means you live a long, healthy life. A person like that might say, well, I do not take anything, I buy a few over-the-counter drugs a year and I bet I do not spend $200 a year. Well, God bless them. They are lucky. They are fortunate, but what Representative Drake is talking about is that very next week may be the time that the chest pain strikes and all of the sudden you have a coronary bypass or stints put in and you are on five or six medications. That happened to yours truly a couple or 3 years ago, and then all of the sudden you are kind of stuck. So what the gentlewoman from Virginia was saying is look, seniors, if you are in that fortunate situation, do not roll the dice on this because you could come up snake eyes. Go ahead and take one of these plans where the monthly premium is 20 bucks a month. There is no deductible. There is a donut hole, but you are not worried about that donut hole because you are blessed with that Methuselah gene. Then later on, as she so correctly pointed out, if something does happen, then you can switch, and you do not have to pay a penalty because you did not sign up; you did not roll the dice and come up snake eyes. Then the corollary to that is say someone who has a lot of prescription drug costs, they are already on six or eight drugs and they are spending $10,000 a year, and they look at that and they say hey, look, give me one, I will pay a higher monthly premium, I may pay 60 bucks a month premium, but that plan gives me coverage in that so- called donut hole. That is important because they are already spending a lot of money, and so you tailor these. The companies are actually doing that. I think it is a great thing.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much for being with us tonight and I want to maybe expand just a little bit on her comments in regard to the penalty, as she explained it very carefully as to why that is necessary part of an insurance program. By the way, Mr. Speaker, that is the exact same situation that exists with Medicare part B. Medicare part B was there in 1965 but it was the optional part. I think former President Truman was the first person to actually voluntarily sign up for part B, the doctor part where it is premium based, and the individual Medicare beneficiary pays 25 percent of the costs and the taxpayer and Medicare, if you will, pays 75 percent. I will bet you, Mr. Speaker, I will bet you that 98, 99 percent of seniors voluntarily sign up for part B and they do it within the 6- month window of opportunity because if they go beyond that then just like in this part D, because a person on part D is an example, as Representative Drake pointed out. If they do not sign up for it and they go beyond the sign-up period, and then all of the sudden they get sick and they go from taking that one drug a month at $78 that she talked about to taking five at $5,000 a month, then they should pay more for their premium. So it is very important and it is not a punitive thing, but it is there to make the program work. Mr. Speaker, we are again honored by one of our colleagues who has served in this House. I think this is his fourth term, and I am talking about the gentleman from Minnesota who I think very soon after November will be the United States Senator from Minnesota, and I am speaking none other than Representative Mark Kennedy. Representative Kennedy, thank you for being with us tonight. I yield to you at this time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much in these closing seconds. And of course we know of the work of the esteemed chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter. What a wonderful way to close this hour. What is more important than the defense of this Nation, as this great patriot just described, and providing health care for our precious seniors?

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I ask you and all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Brian Leonardi on his recent acceptance of a full football scholarship to Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina. Brian is the 18-year-old son of my niece, Allyson Leonardi, and Ed Leonardi. He played linebacker for Aiken High School Hornets, and for 2 years he and his teammates advanced to the semifinals of the 4-A State playoffs. Brian was chosen this year to play for the North squad in an annual all-star game in Conway, South Carolina. His parents, sister Megan and brother Danny are very proud of his accomplishments, as are his Uncle Doug and Aunt Cindy, but I think the happiest and most excited of all are my brother Bill Gingrey and sister-in-law Gail, who are the fortunate grandparents of this outstanding young man. Brian's Congressman, Gresham Barrett, and I join our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to say Godspeed, Brian. Study hard and play well.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, as well as my colleague, Representative Davis from Illinois, and I thank Representative Baird from Washington for bringing this bill up, H. Res. 556. I am a physician Member of the body, and I see, and I did in my practice, of course this has been 4 years ago, a lot of drug addiction unfortunately, and this methamphetamine issue, Mr. Speaker, has reached exponential and unbelievable proportions. When some of us were in college, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you remember this or not, but I certainly do, to study and cram for a test at the last minute, there were always these little pills floating around the fraternity house that you could take. It would literally allow you to stay up all night, and you had an accelerated sense of awareness and could not sleep, and sometimes you literally could go through a whole calculus textbook and do a whole semester's worth of work in one night and think that you were going to go in and ace the test. That rarely happened. That sense of euphoria was there, Mr. Speaker, but when you got that final grade back, that A you thought you had made might more often was a C- or a D. But that was then and this is now. Just listen to this little bit of background and why this idea of Representative Baird's of having a National Methamphetamine Prevention Awareness Week is so important. Methamphetamine is a highly addictive, man-made drug that can be, and I remember you just swallowed a pill, but today can be injected, snorted, smoked and, of course, ingested orally. It causes these feelings, Mr. Speaker, of euphoria that last up to 24 hours, psychotic behavior, auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, delusions, paranoia, potentially causing the user to experience homicidal or suicidal thoughts, as well as violent behavior, brain damage. The scary part about this is it is so easily made, as the previous speakers have talked about, and these clandestine labs in these homes are a lot of times in rural areas. Mr. Speaker, I represent a fairly rural area, northwest Georgia. I have one county in particular who are a great people. I will not mention the name of the county because they do not deserve, I do not think, to be overly criticized because they are working really hard to try to solve this problem in the northwest, but it is a huge problem, and I wanted to take an opportunity in particular, and in this instance I will name names. One of my constituents, she is a real estate agent, works hard, single parent. Her name is Betty Brady. When I was in that county recently, Betty gave me a book that she had written, and it was just kind of a small paperback, almost a syllabus. It was the first time, Mr. Speaker, that she had ever made any attempt at authoring a book. That was not her profession. She is not a professional writer, but she wrote that book talking about her daughter Jennifer. Jennifer's now, thank God, recovered fully from her methamphetamine addiction. She is 24 years old, young lady who is working very hard in the community now, with an outreach, working with law enforcement, talking in school, trying to bring awareness, just as this bill is going to do and why I am so much in favor of it. But it is a heartrending story of this perfect child. They have a son as well and this little perfect daughter, you know, the apple of their eye, and then all of the sudden she fell in with the wrong crowd and got into this methamphetamine addiction and just about destroyed her life. As Betty says in the book, so many of this young lady, her daughter Jennifer's friends did lose their lives, either by getting too much or main-lining something and then going into respiratory depression or whatever. I am just shocked when I read some of the statistics, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that more than 30 million people around the world use methamphetamine-type stimulants, a number that eclipsed the combined global use of cocaine and heroin. That is the problem that Representative Baird is so aware of and why this H. Res. 556 is such an important thing to do, so that people like Betty Brady that are out there in the trenches struggling to make youngsters aware, this will be a week where they can really bring that focus and get into the schools and let people know that this is highly addictive. This is not just the speed that truck drivers used to take so they could drive to the west coast without stopping. This is something that is a very, very serious drug. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague, Representative Westmoreland, for letting me take a few minutes and just talk about this, and I commend Representative Baird. We are fully supportive of it, and I am sure that an overwhelming majority, if not unanimous, vote on this is in order.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee. It is really an honor to be part of this hour discussion tonight with some of the most fiscally responsible Members of this body. My Republican colleagues on the Republican Study Committee, that you just heard from the gentleman from Texas, you will be hearing from others, the gentleman from New Jersey, the gentleman from North Carolina, the gentlewoman from Ohio. These are Members, Mr. Speaker, that get it. As Mr. Hensarling just said, this is really not green eye shade stuff; this is about people and values, as he so well pointed out. It is about real needs as distinct from just wanting more, more, more. Mr. Speaker, my dad told me one time when I was just a teenager, he said, ``Somebody asked a very rich person one time, what would it take to make him happy?'' And the answer was, ``Just a little bit more.'' That is a problem that we have in trying to satisfy all of the wants and not necessarily just the real needs. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues here tonight and on this side of the aisle are committed to restoring some fiscal sanity to this place, and I commend Mr. Hensarling in particular. I have told him in private that he is our modern day William Proxmire of the 109th, and indeed, the 108th Congress as we came in together in regarding to ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse in this Federal Government. In fact, that was our class project that the gentlewoman from Tennessee and myself and others in the 108th class were determined to do, and that is what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the other side and what they want to do and their plans. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 is an example of what they did not do. They voted no for those tax cuts. They said we cannot do that. That is going to, according to the Congressional Budget Office, when you do this static scoring, we are going to cut taxes, we are going to cut rates for everybody that pay taxes. We are going to lower capital gains, we are going to lower the tax on dividends, which indeed is a double taxation. We are going to get rid of the marriage tax penalty. We are going to increase child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child. We are going to finally stomp dead the death tax. As Steve Forbes once said, there should be no taxation without respiration. We did these things, and the opposition said, well, that is going to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, you know, I know, my colleagues know, I hope the American people know that it did not cost us any money. We gained revenue, something like $250 billion over 10 years. That is what happened in 1960 under Democratic President Kennedy; it happened in 1980 under my colleague's favorite, maybe all-time favorite President Reagan. We cut taxes, we raised revenue, and it works. The opposition, they not only oppose that, but they also opposed health care reform, Medicare modernization, Prescription Drug Act. They said that is going to cost $750 billion over 10 years. But of course, actually, their plan, if we had done what they wanted us to do, would have probably cost $3 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, it was only going to cost that money if it did not work. And what we are finding today, as we are getting closer and closer to that deadline of May 15, the 6-month opportunity for seniors to take that option and sign up for prescription drug benefit, we are reaching our goal. We are beyond our goal. Seniors are saying, members of my own family, my mom, my brother, constituents in my district saying, ``Thank you, Congressman. We are saving money.'' I have had people spending $900 a month who found out they qualified for the low income supplement and now are spending $27 a month, they are saving $900 a month. We wanted to do Social Security reform to give individuals an opportunity to have an individual personal account. What does the other side do? They fight that. They are the party of no, of negative. But these are the things that this majority and particularly the Members here tonight, Mr. Speaker, are determined to do for the American people: To reform government, to save money, to let people put that money back into the family budget, as Mr. Hensarling has pushed so hard for. This budget that we are going to vote on, this 2007 budget is a very fiscally sound, responsible budget. It virtually freezes nondefense discretionary spending at the 2006 level. Again, the other side will say, well, you are taking money away from the school children, you are taking money away from Head Start, you are taking money away from social welfare programs. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. All we are doing is putting a cap on discretionary spending, and then we are saying to the appropriators: You decide where that money needs to be spent. You decide whether cuts really need to be made and whether plus-ups need to be made. And that is the responsible way to do it. In conclusion I want to say, too, to the chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the great job that he has done and his willingness to include in this 2007 budget a rainy day fund. This is something that all of the Members here tonight who are speaking during this hour have been calling for and for a number of years saying, look, we know every year that we are going to have a hurricane, we are going to have a natural disaster. It may not be every year, but all of a sudden you go a couple of years and then you have a Katrina. So we need to fund this based on a 10-year average of how much we spend on a natural disaster and emergency. So this is in the budget, $4 billion for each of the next 5 years. I think that is absolutely responsible. In addition to that, we are going to come forward with a line item veto. The President needs it, the Congress wants it, and we are going to get that done. We are also going to have the earmark reforms that Congressman Flake has called for shine the light of day on those earmarks, some of which are very good and should be included in the budget; and last but not least, of course, a sunset commission. Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is an honor. I know we want to hear from our other colleagues on this issue. But I commend the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her continued work on fiscal responsibility and putting together this hour tonight and giving us a chance to weigh in on it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise and share yet another story of success regarding the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. Today I would like to tell you about Lola Squires of Cedartown, Georgia. Lola is a widow and lives on a fixed income. As you can imagine, every dollar of her monthly budget is precious to her livelihood. Due to chronic illness, Lola was paying $1,000 a month for her prescription drugs, which used up almost all of her income. Lola is now enrolled in a Medicare part D plan. As my office was assisting her, we learned that she did qualify for the extra help due to her limited resources, and I am happy to report, as of today, Lola is paying a mere $27 a month for her medication. $27 a month. That is a saving of more than $900 every month for Lola. Madam Speaker, the Medicare part D success stories are pouring in. Seniors have until May 15 to enroll in a plan without penalty; so in the next few weeks, it is absolutely essential that Congress put real people over partisan politics and help our seniors get the medicine they need to stay well.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. I hope he can stay. We may be able to engage in a little bit of a colloquy on some of these points. But in any regard, I thank the gentleman so much for his tireless insight and his understanding, of course, as a physician in making sure that our seniors get the right information so that they do get signed up. He was talking a few minutes ago about the couple where the husband and the wife may have signed up, need to sign up, really, for a different prescription drug plan because they are on different drugs. But the fact that they can go to that same, same pharmacist, maybe it is a corner druggist in their neighborhood, right down the street, I mean, it could be Corley's Pharmacy in La Grange, Georgia. It could be Kim Curl's drugstore up in Hiram in Paulding County, or Steve Wilson's Carter drugstore in Smyrna, Georgia. All of these wonderful independent pharmacists are in my district, and I know the gentleman, Dr. Burgess from Texas, has a similar situation. You know, I think it is so important, as we do approach this deadline for signing up without a penalty, that our colleagues understand that. There was a lot of effort, I think, almost as much effort on the side of resistance as has been on the side of encouragement. I think the encouragement has won out, is continuing to win out over resistance and negativity. But we need to work toward achieving a goal of a full implementation of this program. But here are the encouraging statistics, while the program, as Dr. Burgess said, may have started out a little slow, as people were confused by all of the political rhetoric that was going on, as of last week, Mr. Speaker, as of last week 27 million seniors now have prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Now, when you think about the fact that we are talking about a population of about 41 million, and 27 million now have this coverage under Medicare, and probably 8 million or so, 8 or 12 million, even of those that are not signed up, they already have something. They already have, if they are veterans, TRICARE, TRICARE For Life; if they are retired Federal employees, if they have a prescription drug coverage under the Federal health benefit plan; same thing with State retired teachers. We are getting pretty darn close to 100 percent implementation. In fact, signing up 380,000 new beneficiaries each week, and 1.9 million additional beneficiaries have signed up for prescription drug coverage since mid-February. This represents a 25 percent increase over last month and the number of people who have selected a plan. A lot of our opposition has said over and over, well, new people are not signing up, this is just automatic enrollment for the dual eligibles, the low-income seniors who have both Medicare and Medicaid. Well, that is absolutely not true. Of the 27 million who have signed up, 7.2 million are folks that are not low income, and they had no prescription drug coverage so we are getting there. And as I say, we are going to continue to work right up until the last day, May 15, 2006. Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, are trying to make political hay in saying that we ought to extend that deadline. We ought to push it out another 6 months, but in a way, that is just a cruel hoax because the longer we delay, the longer our needy seniors delay, the more they are either not going to get that supplemental help that they are eligible for, for if they are not eligible for supplemental help because of their income, they are going to continue to pay sticker price for their prescription drugs, more than anybody else in our population. These younger people that are covered under an HMO or possibly an insurance company that has negotiated a low price, they get the discount; and that has been part of the problem, Mr. Speaker, why it is so important that we do this program. It is so unfair for our seniors to have to pay more than anybody else. So we want to encourage them, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will continue to do that.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here this evening doing this special hour of the Republican majority talking about a great success story, and that is the implementation, after a 40-year wait, literally, of a benefit under Medicare that our seniors have been promised by other administrations, by other Congresses. And finally this President, this administration and this Congress, this Republican majority, has delivered on the promise to bring a prescription drug benefit to our needy seniors. I will be joined this evening during this hour by a few of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), a fellow OB/GYN. But I want to start out talking a little bit about this program and why I think it is so beneficial. My colleagues know that in my prior life, as recently as 4 years ago, in fact, before getting elected to the Congress, I practiced medicine for 30 years. I was there really at the infancy of the Medicare program. I was a freshman medical student in 1965 when an amendment to the Social Security Act that is the original Medicare was signed into law by Lyndon Baines Johnson. Something that many people do not know about Medicare part A and part B, part B being the optional part, just as part D is, seniors were going to have to pay a monthly premium. The very person, the very first senior to exercise his option to sign up for part B was none other than President Harry S. Truman. If you go to my Web site, you can actually see the film clip in black and white. I like black and white, which says something about my age and television and movies. It is very interesting. When you look back at that program today, and we are talking about a 40-year history, I think most people would say Medicare has been a great, great benefit. I think all of my colleagues would agree with that, part A and part B, even the optional part B. And over the years, of course, that monthly premium has increased to $88.50 a month today, and I think it was something like $15 a month in 1965, but it is still a deal. It is a good deal because the seniors taking that money probably out of their Social Security check are only actually paying 25 percent of the true cost of part B; 75 percent of it is paid by the general taxpayer. Again, it is an optional program, but I think today I am right in these statistics, 98 percent of seniors when they turn 65, on that other voluntary part, part B, the doctor part, the surgery part, the outpatient testing part and physical exams, have opted in and certainly not opted out. So here we are now finally with a great addition to the Medicare benefit for our seniors. We passed it, we all remember. We have some complaints still from the other side of the aisle that we passed it in the middle of the night. Doing things in the middle of the night in my profession as an obstetrician is quite routine. You either admit patients in labor in the middle of the night and deliver them in the daytime; or your admit them in labor in the daytime and deliver them at night. I would like to feel as a Member of Congress that I am not immune to a 24-hour schedule. But back in November of 2003 we did pass this. We had the transitional program, the Medicare prescription drug discount card that was so beneficial to our neediest seniors because it gave them a $600 credit per year for 2 years. It was actually a year and a half. They got $1,200 worth of credit for purchasing prescription drugs if they were low income, and many were. Now that program has gone away and we are into the insurance program and getting very close to the end of the 6-month sign-up period, May 15 of this year, just a little less than 6 weeks from now. I think my colleagues, I wish on both sides of the aisle, but certainly those of us on the majority, even though some of us for what we felt they felt were legitimate reasons to be in opposition to this, yes, somewhat expensive additional program, they are encouraging our seniors to take advantage of it. I am, as I say, wanting to talk about this program tonight, and we will do that as we continue this hour. But I want to, at this time, yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota who has a lot of interesting stories to tell about folks in Minnesota, his constituents and how they are saving money and eventually how we are saving lives. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank him for bringing that up because it is so important. A lot of the concern over this Medicare part D addition was the cost. And some Members on our side of the aisle, fiscal conservatives, and I understand that, voted against the prescription drug part D because they did not think we could afford it. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it because they did not think we were doing enough. And, of course, if we had done more and there was no doughnut hole, then it would have cost, who knows, $3 trillion maybe instead of the estimated $750 billion over 10 years. But Dr. Burgess brought up an excellent point, Mr. Speaker, and I think we need to elaborate on it a bit. Even if it does cost $750 billion or $75 billion a year over the next ten, what Dr. Burgess is saying, Mr. Speaker, you are going to shift costs from part A and part B onto part D. So what we are saying is, let's pay for the prescription drugs so that we can keep people out of the emergency rooms, off the operating table, off of renal dialysis, out of the nursing homes, maybe in some instances because they have had a stroke. They did not have the medicine to treat the high blood pressure. Now we are paying, either on Medicare or Medicaid, 20 years of skilled nursing home care. What a false economy that is. It is a compassionate thing to do to shift some of that cost from part A to part B. I know, Mr. Speaker, we are getting close to the end of the hour and I thought that what would be good maybe is to quote some stories. In fact, I have one patient from Texas and while the gentleman is still here I wanted to give this to our colleagues, this Medicare D success story. Barbara L. from Kemp, Texas, and Kemp, Texas, is possibly in the gentleman's district, but in any regard, it is Texas. In 2005, Barbara spent $2,100 on prescription drugs. She enrolled in an AARP Part D plan. I know that the support of the AARP, that great senior organization, its 35 million members, gives a little angst and heartburn to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they are used to having blanket support from the AARP and all of the sudden this great senior organization that is supporting this program and that causes them a little discomfort. Barbara signed up for a plan that they offered, and in 2006, she expects to pay not $2,100 but $360, a total savings of $1,740. Listen to what Barbara said: ``I found the drug plan confusing at first, but I called Medicare today.'' One of the organizations that is helping to explain on a contractual basis the plan. ``I called Medicare today, got the information I needed, then I signed up. It is glorifying,'' Barbara says. ``I'm beside myself with the drug cost savings.'' Mr. Speaker, Barbara W. from El Mirage, Arizona, I want to give these testimonials from across this great country because it is not just Texas. It is not just Georgia. It is not just Minnesota. Barbara W. from El Mirage, Arizona, had no prescription drug coverage, like my mom, spent more than $2,600 a year on medications, wanted an inexpensive plan with a low premium. She enrolled in a part D plan where the monthly premium was only $6.14 on a monthly basis. In 2006, she will save $1,800. Nearly $200 a month. And that is Barbara from the great State of Arizona. Here is another, Mr. Speaker. Thomas P. from Providence, Rhode Island. Thomas is 77 years old, spending more than $3,000 a year on prescription drugs. He probably is not low income, didn't have a Medigap coverage or not a veteran, and out of his pocket spending $3,000 a year. He found out from Social Security that he did qualify for extra help with his monthly premium. He did not know it but realized that he qualified. Now he expects to spend not $3,000 a year, but $400 a year on prescriptions. Do the math. That is a total savings of $2,700 a year, and that is not peanuts as they say in Georgia. Thomas says, ``It's worth the time to save all that money.'' Indeed. I think we are getting close to the witching hour. I had one more that I wanted to point out, but, Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the opportunity to bring this hour from the majority to explain this program. I thank Dr. Burgess. I thank Mr. Kline. And I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's support this program. Let's give our seniors what they really need. They deserve it, and they deserve our support.

Mr. GINGREY. I would point out that although a couple, for the reasons that you just so clearly explained, might have signed up for different prescription drug plans, they can get their medication filled at the same pharmacy.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GINGREY. Because of the work they do.

Mr. GINGREY. Because I wanted to ask the gentleman on that point about the independent pharmacists, what we call the corner druggists back in Georgia and maybe also in Texas. I would love for the gentleman maybe to elaborate a little bit on some of the concerns that I know a lot of the Members have heard from the community. Independent pharmacists, not the big chain, but the moms and pops, if you will, God bless them, have some concerns and have had some concerns, and we have been talking about that. In fact, as the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, just this morning, we had conversations with Secretary Leavitt and Dr. Mark McClellan, the director of CMS. They are aware of these concerns, and we may want to discuss that for a moment or two and how we plan to continue to work really closely with those corner druggists that a lot of our patients call, they call them ``doctor''----

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman's being with me tonight describing this program in greater detail. I wanted to point out a couple of slides based on the information that he just gave us, and hopefully he can continue to be with us for a little while longer in this time. But Representative Kline was talking about the fact that it is certainly not just beneficial to the low- income seniors. We know that they get the greatest benefit. But certainly a lot of middle-income seniors have no coverage under Medicare. They have part A and part B, but they have no prescription drug coverage. They may even have a Medigap policy that fills in the deductibles and the copay for part A and part B, but does not have a prescription drug part. And I wanted to point out in this slide to my colleagues, Medicare part D helps working Americans. In fact, half of women on Medicare without drug coverage are middle income. That is represented here on the right, and these people are above 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. They are not going to qualify for any low-income supplement. But this program, my mom is in this category, and on average we are talking almost a 50 percent savings on the cost of their prescription drugs. And so that is why it is important for people to understand that while the benefit for the lowest-income seniors is the greatest, and Representative Kline mentioned that, in many of those instances the only payment is a little copay for a prescription drug, maybe $1 if it is generic or possibly up to $5 if it is a brand name. If their doctor feels that they, for some particular reason, need to be on that brand name, or if there is no generic equivalent available, Medicare, the insurance program, the part D covers the deductible. It covers the monthly premium. It covers the copay of the first $22,050. And guess what. There is no doughnut hole. There is no lack of coverage at any point for those neediest seniors. But it is important that our colleagues understand this and also understand that even the seniors who get no supplement because maybe their income is a little bit higher, as I say, my mom, Mr. Speaker, Helen Gannon Gingrey, 88 years old, she is going to be mad at me, Mr. Speaker, for telling her age, but if you could see her, you would never guess. She is young at heart and very energetic and yet was spending $4,000 or $5,000 a year out of pocket to purchase about five prescription drugs. And I was able to work with her and, as Congressman Kline says, together we were able to go through the www.medicare.gov Web site, and Mom today is saving about $1,100 a year, and that really means a lot to her. I wanted to also point out, Mr. Speaker, in this slide, this kind of gives a breakdown of how our seniors paid for prescription drugs before part D. We are talking about 41 million, about 41 million, and maybe 6 million of those are people under 65 that are on Medicare because of a disability, but this is the population we are talking about, and I think this slide is so instructive to show, before this program, what was happening. Now, my mom, Helen Gingrey, was in this group of something like 40 percent of these 41 million seniors who were paying for prescription drugs out of their own pocket, and that is really the population that we are trying to address. And I would say a third of this group, a third of this 40 percent, are the low income, the ones for whom this program is an absolute Godsend. Now, as we were talking earlier, some people in their Medigap policy also have prescription drug coverage, and that amounted to about 3 percent. Employment-based plans, 26 percent. Now, we are talking about retirees, people who have worked for a company, a big company, a small company, but a company that has not reneged on their promise, as a retirement benefit, to provide health care with prescription drug coverage. And as part of this program, we built in an incentive to those companies to encourage them to continue to provide health care for their retirees, in many cases who have worked for the company 30 or 40 years, who had earned this benefit, and to encourage them to continue it and continue the prescription drug coverage. So about 26 percent were in that category. Medicaid, 12 percent; they will all now be covered under this Medicare part D. State-based programs and other sources, 6 percent. But this is pretty much how it breaks down. And as we get closer to that sign-up deadline without paying a penalty, Mr. Speaker, beyond May 15, we do not want that to happen, and I would hope our colleagues on the Democratic side would join us in the majority in the realization that to discourage is a dreadful thing, of course, for those who are going to literally get the benefit with minimal, if any, cost, but those who have to pay the monthly premium, which is quite a number, to discourage them and then have them get beyond that May 15 deadline, and then all of a sudden they realize that they have been fed a bill of goods and some bad information and then they hurriedly sign up, but they fall into that penalty phase. That is something that we do not want to happen. I do not think Members on either side of the aisle want that to happen, and I hope that we will work toward this goal. I see, Mr. Speaker, that we have been joined by another of my colleagues. I mentioned him at the outset of the hour, and that is the gentleman from Texas, not only my colleague in this great body, the House of Representatives but also a fellow physician and a fellow OB/ GYN specialist, Dr. Mike Burgess. I would like to yield to him at this time.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield. And the gentleman said, you know, doing your job, and that is exactly what we should be doing. In fact, I think what we are hearing from the other side as they continue to oppose everything that this majority has tried to do in the 109th Congress, and of course the rhetoric gets worse and worse as we approach November, and we all know it is an election year. But it is not only, I think, not doing your job for your constituents, but it is kind of like one of my favorite Garth Brooks songs, it's shameless. It is absolutely shameless to think that someone would hold a town hall meeting and discourage, as the gentleman from Minnesota said, seniors from signing up for something that is going to save everybody some money, but it is an absolute Godsend to those of our seniors who are low income, low assets, the very neediest in our society. And I think most of the legislation that we try to pass, and I think the attitude should be the same whether we are Republicans or Democrats, is to try to help those in the greatest need who really can't help themselves through no fault of their own. We need to put some wind beneath their wings to kind of uplift them. And I know there may be a few in the gentleman from Minnesota's district and I know there are some in the 11th of Georgia who still need to get the message, and maybe they do not know and they do not realize. They have not gone to the Social Security Web site and found out that they qualify because their income is only $14,450, or if they are married, $19,250 a year; and they do not have assets worth more than $11,500 if they are single, or $23,000 if they are married. We need to get them signed up, and I know the gentleman would agree with me on that.

Mr. GINGREY. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.