Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that we have a responsibility to use restraint in our budget process. This week, we begin debate on a series of appropriations bills that will fund America's priorities and necessities. We should use this moment to redouble our efforts to ensure Federal money is not wasted on pet projects and underperforming programs. As President Bush reminded us in his State of the Union address this year, ``Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all.'' Mr. Speaker, we have two courses of action. First, we must keep nonmilitary discretionary spending in check. Second, we must attack our bloated and often inefficient bureaucracies by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Much of the money in our Federal budget is well spent, but our goal should be for all of the money to be spent wisely. We have a responsibility to the people of this Nation to use their tax dollars with care. The American family pays too high a price in taxes for our burgeoning Federal Government, and spending restraint will help lower taxes on those who need it most, hardworking Americans.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities of this Congress is to defend and protect our Nation from external and internal terrorist threats. Some of the vital features of H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act, include funding to train and prepare first responders, improvements in cyber security, improvements in container security and enhanced border security. The Homeland Security Authorization Act will authorize funding for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and it requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to coordinate and address duplication problems between the Customs and Border Protection agency and the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency. Most importantly, I am pleased the rule we passed last night allows the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) to have his amendment made in order. The Norwood amendment, among other provisions, clarifies that State and local law enforcement agencies have the right and the authority to enforce our immigration laws. Illegal immigration has become a threat to the security of many of our communities, even those not along our borders. The problem of illegal immigration has grown in part because local and State authorities have been uncertain of the jurisdiction regarding the apprehension, detention and deportation of illegal aliens. Sheriffs departments throughout my congressional district have been burdened with unnecessary expenses in detaining and housing illegal alien criminals prior to ICE involvement. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has introduced his amendment to clarify the boundaries of jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of Federal immigration laws and provides for a training manual to aid in this effort. I believe that when an officer or deputy swears an oath to enforce the law, they should enforce all the laws, both State and Federal. Mr. Speaker, immigration enforcement is critical for securing our Nation from terrorists. A porous border that allows terrorists and the enemies of this Nation to pass through undetected is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of this rule, passage of the Norwood amendment, and passage of the underlying bill to strengthen our borders and protect our homeland from another attack.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor 30 years of service by Cobb County history teacher Winfred ``Windy'' Orrell, who is retiring from teaching this Friday, May 20. With admirable dedication, Mr. Orrell served his students not only in the classroom but also on the field as a coach for the football, baseball, track and cross- country teams at Campbell and Cobb County High Schools. While some in Hollywood may know him as Julia Roberts' history teacher, Coach Orrell is most famous in Cobb County for his colorful history reenactments. His reenactment of the Battle of Vicksburg is legendary among his students as he crawls on his belly with imaginary rifle in hand, moving in and out of imaginary trenches. Mr. Orrell's desk has represented many ships, including the Alabama and the Bismarck. He knows how to get the very best out of every one of his students because he makes history enjoyable and memorable. Mr. Orrell honed his skills at West Georgia College, where former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich, was his teacher. Mr. Orrell's gifts of teaching earned him two Campbell High School Teacher of the Year honors and five Star Teacher awards. He served as a social studies department head at Campbell High School for 15 years and at South Cobb High for 2. He started teaching AP courses, advanced placement, in 1982 in the earliest days of the program and served as a successful example for the budding AP program across the State of Georgia. As much as he loves teaching gifted students, Coach Orrell will be the first to tell us that the greatest moments of his teaching career have been helping those students in need, students that were disconnected from the school community and disillusioned with learning. He found great joy in restoring their hope and belief in the value of education. He let them know he believed in them and they had the capacity to learn and to achieve their goals. Mr. Orrell has influenced his students and even other teachers. He leaves each school a better place to teach and learn than when he arrived. And his departure on Friday will be no different. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to join me in congratulating Coach Windy Orrell for his service to teaching, providing inspiration to future leaders, and helping make Cobb County a standard bearer for Georgia education.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a coincidence today that Democrats in their one hour special order would be led by a Georgian, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), and the Republican hour today would be led by myself, another Georgian. I am really, of course, pleased to have this opportunity. I am going to talk on an entirely different subject to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, than what we just heard for the previous hour. This time is dedicated really to the Republican Conference Health Care Access and Affordability Public Affairs Team. We put together this team for the purpose of letting our colleagues know, letting the American people know, that the Republicans care deeply about the health of this Nation, particularly in regard to those who are the neediest, whether they are white, black or Latino. It does not matter. People in this country who need health care that really cannot afford it, who are struggling through no fault of their own, we are deeply committed to solving these problems, whether we are talking about Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security for that matter. These are the so-called entitlement programs, the mandatory spending. When we talk about a budget for fiscal year 2006 of $2.6 trillion, two- thirds of that budget goes to mandatory spending. That means those who meet eligibility requirements, obviously Social Security retirees and disabled and widows and dependent children; the Medicare program, you are 65; or you are younger than 65 and you are disabled, the Medicaid program; or you are poor. And you do not have the means or the wherewithal to purchase private health insurance or maybe you do not have a job, you do not have an employer that provides health insurance for you. These are the people who meet those eligibility standards, and that is called mandatory spending; and it includes two-thirds of our Federal budget. We have a huge problem with the growth in those numbers because, as our population grows, there are more and more people who are struggling who become eligible for one of these three mandatory benefits. It is becoming a tremendous strain on this country. Tonight I will focus primarily on the Medicaid program, because our States are in such dire economic stress because of Medicaid, which is a joint Federal-State program, a shared program, if you will. The President, during the last couple of months, has spent a lot of time talking about the Social Security program. My colleagues know that he has been going all over this country trying to explain to the American people that we are in a real crisis; and certainly, at least I think everybody would agree, there is a serious problem with Social Security because of demographics, because of the fact that thankfully, thankfully, people today are living longer and they are healthier. As the baby boomers fully mature and that starts the first wave, the leading edge of that wave is upon us in 2008, and as they fully mature, we go from 45 million Social Security beneficiaries today to within 10 or 15 years to having 77 million. And trying to fund that program with a payroll tax that has not increased in a number of years, it is a tremendously difficult problem; and it needs to be solved. It is not something we can put off for other Congresses. I hear from some of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, well, it is not that bad of a problem; why do we not just kind of wait awhile and let somebody else deal with it. I mean after all, 2006 will be upon us pretty soon, and it is the next election that is most important, not the next generation. I certainly do not agree with that, and I know this President and this Republican leadership does not agree with that at all. But what we are hearing a lot of times is, well, why are you focusing on Social Security when we have these huge problems with Medicare and Medicaid? I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have heard that argument. The point, of course, is that we have focused on Medicare, and I am very surprised at how quickly they forget. It was, after all, just December of 2003 when this body, this Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, passed the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. That prescription drug part of Medicare, of course, does not become operational until January of next year, 2006. So we have not had an opportunity to see what benefits that will bring to the program. We have had an interim program, I think, that has worked very, very well. It is called the Transitional Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Card program. All of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, remember that, the 1\1/2\ to 2-year program, before we get started in the part D prescription drug premium-based, voluntary part of Medicare next year, to give immediate relief, as we did in December of 2003, to let our seniors obtain, for no more than $30 a year and, in most instances, a free Medicare prescription drug discount card, which would allow them to go to the drugstore with those four or five prescriptions that their doctor had written for high blood pressure or control of their blood sugar so their diabetes did not get worse, or something to prevent osteoporosis, or to, as I say, lower blood pressure and cholesterol. So when they went to the drugstore, they were not paying sticker price. They were getting the same kinds of discounts, competitive discounts that people who were working and had employer-sponsored health care, maybe under an HMO, and they got deep discounts on their drug prices. This is what the discount program, the transitional program brought to our neediest seniors; and, in fact, those living at or below the Federal poverty level were credited on that card. It became not a credit card, but a debit card; and they got $600 a year for those two years, 2004 and 2005, a total of $1,200 that they could apply to the cost of their prescription medication. There were other things, Mr. Speaker, and I know my colleagues remember that. If not, hopefully, this will be a reminder. For the first time ever under the Medicare program, new beneficiaries, those just turning 65, were having the opportunity to go to their doctor, to their general doctor, their internist, their family practitioner and having a complete, thorough, head-to-toe physical examination. In the past, Medicare did not pay for that. You could only get reimbursed for a doctor visit if you were sick, if your nose was bleeding, if you had pain in your chest from a coronary and you were staggering because you were about to have a stroke, or you showed up in the emergency room. But just to have a routine physical to find out, hey, is everything okay, to get your blood pressure checked and have that cholesterol level determined, and the screening procedures, or maybe if you had a mammogram to rule out a very early breast cancer; these things were not covered under Medicare. But under this leadership, this Speaker, this Republican-led Congress, this President brought, in December of 2003, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. So for everybody to suggest that this Congress is not focused on health care and has done nothing and is wasting our time trying to solve the Social Security problem is just absolutely untrue; and I think fair-minded Members of this body, whether Republicans or Democrats, know that. They know that. They know that we have devoted a lot of attention to Medicare. It remains to be seen, really, how that program is going to work. All we hear from the opposition is, oh, well, you know, it is going to cost a lot. They misled us, they lied to us, they said it was only going to cost $395 billion, and now it is going to cost $750 billion. I do not know what the true cost is, but I do know this: when, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office is calculating the expense of the program, they are talking about what it is going to cost to provide a prescription drug benefit, even though it is premium-based. Like part B, sure, there will be a cost to the taxpayer. The part B Medicare program, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people probably do not realize this, but the premiums, even though they have gone up every year since 1965, and now are approaching $80 a month, they only cover 25 percent. The general fund taxpayers are supporting 75 percent of that cost. So the prescription drug program will be very similar to that. There will, indeed, be a cost. But what is so misleading is no credit whatsoever is given to the fact that if a person is taking a blood pressure medication to keep them from having a stroke, if a person can now afford to go to the drugstore and get Lipitor or Pravachol or one of these statin drugs to lower their cholesterol and avert the need for open heart surgery, or someone is able to take Glucophage or insulin so that that diabetic condition does not get so bad that it destroys their kidneys or causes blindness or causes peripheral vascular disease to the point that they need an amputation of a limb or renal dialysis or maybe even a kidney transplant; all of those things, by the way, are currently today covered under Medicare, but extremely expensive. If we can prevent that by allowing our seniors, our neediest seniors to afford the medication and treat these diseases in a timely fashion, then we save money on part A, being the hospital, the nursing home care, for those who have had a stroke and maybe have to spend the rest of their lives in a nursing home; part B would be the fee that the cardiothoracic surgeons charge to do open heart surgery. We save that money, yet you get no credit, you get no score for that. But, Mr. Speaker, surely, if this program is going to work and if it makes sense, and it certainly makes sense for this physician Member of this body and, furthermore, it is the compassionate thing to do. So, indeed, to suggest that the Republican majority in this body, led by our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and that President Bush and his administration do not care about health care and have ignored and narrowly focused on Social Security and forgotten about the needy in this society regarding health care, it is just absolutely, Mr. Speaker, absolutely untrue. I think, again, fair-minded Members of this body on both sides of the aisle would readily admit that. Now, I spoke at the outset of this hour of the Republican Conference on Health Care, Access, and Affordability Public Affairs Team. That is us; that is me. I am taking all of the time this evening, but we have a strong team. We are not just health care providers, although many of us are physicians and dentists and other people involved in health care. I wanted to take this time to share with our colleagues our vision and our focus and what we are doing to try to make sure that we have a good policy that is fair and balanced and that we are taking care of those who are in most need in regard to health care. Mr. Speaker, one of the huge problems right now, of course, is the Medicaid program. Again, this is part of our entitlement spending, the mandatory spending, as I outlined at the beginning of the hour, the two-thirds of the Federal budget. Medicaid is a Federal-State program, with the Federal Government actually paying, in most cases, more than the State does, to provide health care for the neediest in our society, especially for children and single mothers. It is a great program. It has served us very, very well. In fact, I have a slide, Mr. Speaker, that I will get up in just a few minutes and I would like to point out how that Federal-State match works. It is based, really, on average income in a State. A State with a lower average income, a poor State, there is going to be a higher Federal percentage; and the parameters range from a 50-50 participation to 80-20. And if we can focus on this chart to my left, this is not all of the States; I think I was informed that the machine broke and they were not able to get but about half of the States on the chart. But it does include my State of Georgia; and last year in Georgia, the Federal match was 60, almost 60.5 percent, and the anticipated match for the fiscal year 2006 is 60.6. So in Georgia it is about a 60-40 split. I was looking for Mississippi, which I think is probably one of the States that has the lowest per capita income where the Federal match actually approaches the maximum 80 percent. It is not on this board. But I think the Federal match in the State of Mississippi is about 78 percent. But it varies. Alabama is here, 70.1 percent Federal participation in 2005. And in 2006, that dropped down to 69.5 percent. There are other States, like I say, that are 50/ 50. Illinois, as an example, is 50/50. The State of Massachusetts is about 50/50. Mr. Speaker, this is the way it should be. We should indeed participate more for those States who have the greatest need. One thing, though, that really concerns us, and I think one of the main problems with the Medicaid system, is that there is a significant amount of waste and abuse of the system. And yes, in fact, Mr. Speaker, in some instances, downright fraud. And if a State is a 50/50 state, there may not be much advantage to take an advantage of the system. But if the State has a higher Federal match than the State match, you can see that if you are abusing the system, gaming the system, if you will, then there is an advantage because you are pulling down more Federal dollars than you are spending at the State level. And so these are some of our problems, of course, that we are facing now with the Medicaid program. The spending is growing more, of course, in times of economic stress and distress. And we have gone through a lot of that in the last several years, particularly since 9/11. And of course the population growth, you are going to have more people who are legitimately eligible for this care. So the spending is going to go up. But we want to make sure that we get dollars to those who are in need and not to those who are in greed, if you will. And that is very important. And there will be a very strong focus on Medicaid reform, led, quite honestly, by the governors, by the Governors Association, both Democratic and Republican governors. They have been here. They have talked to the President. They have talked to Congress. They have some very good ideas of how to make this system work better and make sure that those who have the greatest need have access to those Medicaid dollars. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to share with my colleagues just a few numbers about the magnitude of really what I am talking about. In the year 2002, the total Federal dollars spent on the Medicaid program, now this is just the Federal dollars, $140 billion. That is in the year 2002. In the year 2004, that number has gone up to $184 billion. You know, we are talking about significant increases. From 2001 to 2002, the Federal spending Medicare increased 8 percent. From 2002 to 2003, it was about 9 percent. From 2003 to 2004, in the same range. And on and on and on. So when people say to me from back home, Congressman, do not cut Medicaid spending because, you know, you are affecting my program. And that could be a physician talking about, you know, his or her reimbursement. It could be a hospital. It certainly is likely to be one of these rural hospitals that is called a disproportionate share, which means their clientele is disproportionately weighted toward the Medicaid program because they are a poor community. And they are concerned, and I understand that. But what the President did in the 2006 budget that he submitted to us was to cut a certain number of Medicaid dollars over a 5-year period of time. What we have done here in the Congress, the President recommends, and then we legislate. We make the final decision. And it looks like we are going to have a Medicaid funding cut over the next 5 years of $10 billion. That is $2 billion a year but that, we hope and I feel very confident, we can find those savings by eliminating this situation that I described, waste, fraud and abuse. Now, let me just give you one example, Mr. Speaker, and I want to share that with my colleagues, the nursing home situation, long-term care in a skilled facility. Medicare, under Part A only covers a certain number of days. I think it is something like 100. And after that, the patient is pretty much on their own, and that has to come out of their pocket. If they do not have long-term care insurance, and most people do not, we are trying to address that. This Congress is trying to address that, the Republican leadership, and that is why we put health savings accounts in the Medicare modernization bill of December 2003, so that that money in those accounts can be used without any tax penalty whatsoever to purchase long-term health care insurance. But most people do not have that today. And if a loved one ends up in a nursing home, then once those Medicare dollars, those days of eligibility are utilized, and the person has no other resources, they become what is known as dual eligible because they have no wealth and no source of income, then all of a sudden they are eligible for Medicaid. So, the reality today, my colleagues, is that probably 70 percent of nursing home reimbursement is from the Medicaid program. Now, some of that is appropriate. But some of it is inappropriate. And indeed, there is actually a cottage industry out there where our good attorneys advise people how to hide their income, how to shift their possessions and their net worth to maybe another family member, and all of a sudden they have got nothing. They do not have any wealth. They do not have any income, and they are dual eligible for Medicaid. That, my colleagues, is what I call gaming the system. And when you do that, you take money away from the program, desperately needed money for single moms, for the poor who need prenatal care, for little infants that are born prematurely that need a good start in life, and they cannot get it because there is no money there. This is something that we, the Republican majority, and hopefully in a bipartisan fashion with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are giving very serious attention to it. And yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can work on the Social Security problem and fix that, get out of that crisis situation and work on solving the Medicaid problem at the same time. Absolutely, we can. We will. We are doing that, and we will get to the finish line on both of these programs, and we will do it sooner rather than later. We will not be irresponsible on these issues and put this off and say, Hey, you know, we do not want to touch that third rail because we are worried about our re-election in 2006 and keeping our majority. We are going to keep our majority by doing the right thing. And we will let the elections take care of themselves. But we have to make sure that we understand, the American people understand, and that we do not let the nay-sayers poison the well like they tried to do on that Medicare discount card. I was at a little town hall meeting in one of my poorest counties recently in Southwest Georgia, Talbot County, a great community, wonderful people, but poor, very low tax base. And we were talking about Social Security. Miss Menafee came up to me after the hour and a half town hall meeting, and she said, Congressman, thank you for that information on Social Security. I think I really understand it better now. I have been getting those automated phone calls and those slick glossy mailers. I do not know whether they were from AFL-CIO or George Soros and some 527, but thank you, Congressman for helping me understand it better, to see how an individual personal account can grow and have the miracle of compound interest. But I just want to say to you, also, thank you for Medicare modernization. And thank you from the bottom of my heart for that prescription drug discount card, that transitional program. Miss Menafee told me that she had been spending something like $400 a month for five or six drugs that she desperately needed, and because she was eligible for that $1,200 credit and the lowest pricing, in fact, I think maybe a dollar, $3 copay, she said she had reduced over $400 a month worth of medical expenses to $9 a month. Miss Menafee, God bless you. And she is 80 years old and looks healthy, and I think she is going to outlive us all because of what we did. So that is the compassion. That is the thoughtfulness that this Republican leadership, this majority has in regard to the health care program. Mr. Speaker, I guess I could go on probably long beyond my allotted hour. But I am going to try to go ahead and bring this to a close because I think, hopefully, my colleagues have heard me loud and clear and understand that we care about health care. We care about the uninsured. We have passed association health plans in this body at least twice, and we will continue to pass it. We have passed tort reform so that doctors and hospitals are not ordering all these unnecessary tests. And every individual that walks into an emergency room with a headache does not need a CAT scan, but they are getting it because the doctors are afraid they are going to be sued, or the hospital, and that is why people cannot afford health insurance. All that defensive medicine, these additional lab tests, it drives the price of health insurance up so high that it is out of reach for far too many people. And we end up with 43 million in this country who have no health insurance, and most of them are working. But we are going to help them. Again, we are going to help them by what we have done in Medicare modernization, give them an opportunity to set up through their employer a health savings account where they can get catastrophic insurance for a very low premium, Mr. Speaker, a very low monthly premium, and then the employer or a relative or a friend can help them fund an account that can grow, that can enjoy the miracle of compound interest, that they can use that money for a lot of types of things that traditional health insurance does not even cover, eye care, dental care, mental health services, just so many things. So it is a pleasure to be part of this team, to be here tonight, to be talking about what we, the Republican health care access team, is doing. But, you know, again, I want to make sure my colleagues understand that I am not an overly partisan person. It is not all about left versus right or Republican versus Democrat. It is right versus wrong, and I think we need to focus on doing the right thing, and we ought to try to do it as much as we can in a bipartisan fashion. And to that point, Mr. Speaker, I want to let my colleagues know that we have recently formed a medical/dental doctors in Congress caucus in this House. There are 13 of us. There are three dentists. There are ten MDs. Three of those MDs are on the democratic side; seven on the Republican side. And we are going to work on these issues in a bipartisan fashion. You know, I thought yesterday, as we had that plane, that little Cessna that inadvertently got in the airspace over the Capitol, and we all went just, I mean, pouring out of here in semi panic, although the Capitol police did an excellent job of keeping people calm, but, you know, making sure that we got out of harm's way as quickly as possible. You have to take every one of these threats seriously, and I could not help but thinking as I was running down the street, where are the other 12 members of our physician and dental doctor caucus? We probably were all going in a different direction. My co-chairman of that caucus is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), Mr. Speaker, a great Member of this body. The gentleman has been here a good bit longer than I have been, a fine doctor from Arkansas. The gentleman and I have been working together. That was one of the things we were talking about last week. The next meeting we have, we are going to make sure that we work with the House physician so that this team would know what we would do in a situation like that so we were not all going in different directions. Maybe all 13 of us, hopefully the caucus will grow, I like doctors and dentists in Congress, but we could go to a designated spot so if this really truly turned out to be a terrorist attack, we would be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Again, as I speak to my colleagues this afternoon and I am deeply appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the opportunity to talk about what the Republican majority is doing on health care, I do not want to forget that the American people do not like a lot of partisanship and animosity and, indeed, hatred. We do not accomplish anything in that fashion. I am very proud to be part of that new bipartisan caucus as we work towards solving these problems.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of three very impressive schools in my district, Columbus High School, LaGrange High School, and Campbell High School, which were selected by Newsweek magazine among the top high schools in America. To have three Eleventh District schools included on this prestigious list speaks to the dedication and accomplishments of our district's educators, students, and community members. As the former chairman of the Marietta City School Board, I know the great work that goes on in our school districts. I am glad the rest of the Nation finally knows about it as well. LaGrange High School has a long tradition of providing students with the kind of education that truly helps our children succeed in life. Columbus High School traces its history back to the 1890s, so it is no wonder the school is a perennial education all-star; practice makes perfect. Campbell High School has upheld the standard of excellence in Cobb County for years, its teachers, staff, and students showing a relentless ambition for achievement, and, just last week, hosted our Vice President for a discussion on Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating these schools.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we bring debate on this rule to a close, I must stress the importance of strengthening our communities' efforts against gang crime. Like other forms of organized crime, gangs are at the center of drug violence, identity theft, bank robberies and many of the deadly shootings we read about in the local papers. We need to act in one strong voice to indicate that our laws have a purpose, that our prosecutors and law enforcement officers mean business. Gangs are a national problem, and they will not go away by simply putting them into an arts and crafts program or opening up a gymnasium to let them play midnight basketball. We can prevent the formation of gangs by strengthening our families, and we can deter their crimes by breaking their organization and putting them in jail. Gangs are no longer simply found in the largest cities but have made their way into our rural and suburban communities as well. Gangs are a problem which need a resolution because the cost is in human lives. One of the more important aspects of the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act is mandatory minimum sentencing. With mandatory sentencing, law enforcement will gain leverage over the lower-level gang members, leverage that will put pressure on a gang member to ``roll over'' on their leadership. With cooperation comes the ability to take down an entire gang network, which is the desired effect of this legislation. If there is no threat of doing hard time, there is no incentive to cooperate with law enforcement investigators. In fact, minimal sentencing of much shorter time is often viewed by low-level 16- and 17-year-old gang members as a badge of honor, so- called ``earning your bones.'' They come out of prison in 6 months to 2 years and move up the gang chain of command. Plain and simple, mandatory minimum penalties are an important piece in protecting the public from violent gangs by taking down the system that supports them. Mr. Speaker, mandatory sentencing, this is not a new concept. In fact, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2002 contained 20-year mandatory minimums for child abductions and earned the support of 178 Democrats at final passage. Mandatory minimum sentences were part of the 2003 PROTECT Act, which passed this body by a vote of 400 to 25. The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act contained mandatory minimum sentences, and it passed on suspension. An amendment to the intelligence bill that contained mandatory minimum sentencing to assure appropriate penalties for serious offenses such as possession of atomic, biological and chemical weapons passed 385 to 30. Mandatory minimum sentencing has been widely supported by this House and I believe works to deter crime. Getting tough on crime requires tough and uniform enforcement. We cannot afford to relent in our efforts to deter gang crime and enforce our laws. We need to address this problem while we have the opportunity and before it grows further out of control. We need to invest in new technology, unify our intelligence and strengthen our sentencing so law enforcement will have the tools to get gangs off the street. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to clarify and to remind my colleagues on the other side, who are suggesting we should be adding more social programs to this legislation, that this is not a social programs bill. It is a law enforcement bill. If they would like to work with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to craft a bill that would authorize arts and craft classes for gang members, certainly they can do that. I would also like to mention that we currently have spent over the past 4 years, 2001 to 2004, over $2.1 billion on juvenile social programs aimed at prevention. And even with $2.1 billion, we have continued to see this dramatic rise in gang violence. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the distinguished author of the bill and member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, and now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and it makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to get tough on gang activity. If we can get tough on drugs and if we can get tough on identity theft, terrorism, child abduction, we can get tough on gangs by creating the tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets. Gang activity is a real problem, a continuously growing problem. All cities with a population of more than 250,000 people have reported gang activity. Best estimates indicate that there are at least 750,000 gang members in the United States. They represent the ills of our society with links to drug trade, human trafficking, identity theft, assault and murder. Gang members continue to break our laws, reject rehabilitation efforts, and they are branching out beyond our cities into suburban and, yes, even rural, communities. Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve our problems by simply throwing around money, nor can we simply categorize gang activity as isolated incidents. We cannot eliminate gangs by prosecuting incident by incident. We need to enforce our laws in language gang members can understand: you do the crime; you do the time. With the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Officers and many other, more specialized, law enforcement organizations, H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005, will make the necessary changes to prosecute gang criminals. The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act designates high- intensity gang areas, and it authorizes funds to combat their illegal activity for special State and Federal enforcement task forces. It authorizes $20 million per year over 5 years to help States hire prosecutors, purchase technology, purchase equipment, and train law enforcement. Most importantly, it increases penalties to deter violent gang crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault. The penalties include death or life imprisonment for murder, 30 years for kidnapping or rape, and 20 years for assault. In addition, this legislation includes juvenile justice reform to ensure that adult crimes, with adult motives, are prosecuted with adult penalties. The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act would give the Attorney General discretion on whether or not to try a juvenile in Federal court as an adult if they are 16 or 17 years old. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, this legislation does not and will not apply adult standards to anyone younger than 16. According to the Department of Justice ``Homicide Trends Report,'' between 1976 and 2002 one out of every three murders were committed by a juvenile for gang-related reasons. That means 16- and 17-year-olds are making adult, criminal decisions that equal tragedy for our neighbors and our friends. More than half the States have enacted laws that mandate the prosecution of juveniles as adults for certain violent crimes, most notably murder. My own State of Georgia has laws that give prosecutors discretion on whether to treat juveniles as adults involving violent and repeat offenses. Children by the legal definition making adult criminal decisions affect everyone. We need to pass strong anti-gang laws to help prevent troubled teenagers from becoming violent gang members. As gangs spread and grow, we are seeing more drug activity. These are not simply high schoolers caught with marijuana. We are seeing gangs produce and trade dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine. For example, in February, the Atlanta police, United States Drug Enforcement, the MCS Drug Task Force and other law enforcement agencies discovered Georgia's first ``superlab'' in my district, in Smyrna, Georgia, the 11th. With 39 pounds of meth crystal and 250 gallons of the drug in liquid form, one mistake could have destroyed an entire neighborhood. By strengthening laws against gangs, we are helping fight the supply side of our war against drugs. Gangs are not just a city threat when they jeopardize suburban neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, gang activity is as important to the war on crime today as the battles against organized crime in the 1960s and 1970s. This legislation goes beyond national gangs like the Bloods and the Crips and would actually make progress in breaking down membership before these smaller gangs expand into a national nightmare. Like our war against terrorism, our law enforcement on the State, local, and national levels need to communicate, to share intelligence, and to share resources. We need stronger sentencing to deter crime, and we need to identify potential hot spots before they become major problems. With passage of the rule, and the underlying bill, we will have the power to take back our communities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 268 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the bill's author.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Virginia who just spoke is a brilliant lawyer, and I know he is not missing any points; but I want to say it is very important that the rest of our colleagues understand, we know that all of these crimes mentioned here today are illegal. But the point is, this bill addresses the dismantling of the systems that support gangs, and I think it is very important that we keep that in mind. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), 8 years King County sheriff and 30 years as a police officer.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, with the 60th anniversary of World War II on all our minds, I thought it important to pay tribute to the proud veterans of the 11th District of Georgia and, indeed, America for the heroism that they displayed that has made possible the unprecedented freedom that we enjoy today. They deserve our gratitude and our full support. One such veteran from Marietta, Georgia, is Lieutenant Colonel Faye Knodle. Colonel Knodle was drafted into the Army on December 2, 1942. He attended boot camp at Camp Beale, California, and in December 1943, he was moved to Camp Bowie, Texas, for combat training in preparation for combat duty in Europe. Like the proud stories of so many brave Americans, Colonel Knodle hit Omaha Beach on June 10, 1944, D-Day plus 4, as a platoon sergeant in Patton's Third Army. Two days later, for his exemplary service, he received a battlefield commission from General Patton himself, raising him to the officer ranks. Knodle fought his way through France and Germany into the Ruhr Pocket. He was later transferred to the 20th Armored Division and was assigned a section to free prisoners at Dachau. There he rejoined the Third Army and was part of the drive to Bavaria and the takeover of Hitler's hometown of Branau, Austria, on May 2, 1945. He became Commandant of Branau until July of 1945 when he received orders to return to the States in preparation for the invasion of Yokohama, Japan. He landed in the United States for a 30-day leave before reporting to Camp Cook, California, but before the end of that leave, the Japanese surrender was announced. After serving in the Reserve component for 6 years, he was again called to active duty in November of 1951 and then served in various training roles in the 129th Division until he was discharged from service in 1965 as a Lieutenant Colonel, thus ending a distinguished 23-year military career. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Knodle's story is just one of thousands that this brave generation shares. When they were young men, our Nation sent these brave soldiers off to foreign lands to battle the forces of evil, and they came back heroes, setting our Nation on a true course for greatness. We have often heard them called the Greatest Generation, and I cannot think of a more fitting title for these brave men. By sharing their stories and remembering their sacrifices, we celebrate the freedom our country enjoys. As Ronald Reagan noted on the 40th anniversary of D- Day, ``We will always remember, we will always be proud, we will always be prepared, so we may always be free.''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) and, of course, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is here, too. It is great to be here tonight to join with the team in talking about this. I did a quick count as we were talking about children and grandchildren. I think among the three of us, we have 15 children and 11 grandchildren. So it was really good particularly to hear the gentleman from Texas talking about our obligation to our children and our grandchildren. That is something that is so important, and it is an extremely important thing to mention tonight. The problem that we have with Social Security, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, is a demographic problem. And thank God we are living longer today than folks did back in 1935 and 1936 when, as the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) pointed out, the life expectancy was 61, 62 years old. You could not even get early benefits at that point. You had to be 65. So Social Security for the government was a pretty good deal. They were not really worried about the trust fund. Unfortunately, Congresses over the last 70 years have spent the trust fund money. I will not say squandered it. Certainly they have not stolen it. They have spent the money on very worthwhile endeavors, whether it is K-12 education, higher ed, Head Start, veterans benefits, agriculture, you name your favorite Federal program. But now we are in a real bind and that trust fund is not there and even if it were, even if it were and we did nothing to change Social Security as we know it, we get to the year 2042 and if we do nothing, and the other side of the aisle basically so far is saying, hey, it's not a crisis, maybe it's a nuisance and let's try to ignore it and do nothing. If you do that, across the board, Social Security beneficiaries are going to receive 73 percent of that defined benefit plan, what we promised them; they would get 73 cents back on the dollar. That is just not acceptable. One way to fix the system, of course, and we have talked about this, would be to change the way you calculate that first check. The way it has always been done has been based on average wages, and that is what our current 45 million-or-so Social Security beneficiaries, their initial check is based on average wages. Then, of course, there is a COLA, cost-of-living adjustment, every year. One of the ways to fix this problem, to make sure that people get, the seniors who are continuing to receive their checks, would be to change the way we calculate the initial benefit for those who are not yet at retirement age and to go from that first check based on average wages to average prices. If we do that, then we will solve the Social Security solvency problem. But people who are not yet retired, who are approaching retirement, the younger workers, their initial check will be a benefit that is probably 30, 35 percent less than our current beneficiaries are receiving. They would continue to get a cost-of- living adjustment. That would fix the system. What the President has said and what this majority is saying is, we can combine that with the option for our younger workers to invest in an individual personal account with up to 4 percent of the 12.4 percent FICA tax. That would be their money. It would be their account. They literally would have their name on it. It would enjoy the miracle of compound interest. And for somebody 25 years old, you would get 35 or 40 years' worth of compounding. At the end of the day, that is, at the point of their retirement, whether they take the early retirement at 62 or at their age of full retirement, the benefit they would accrue, and it could be as much as a total corpus of $250,000 in that individual personal account. That combined with their Social Security benefit check would mitigate a lot of that loss and they would get almost as much as the current retirees are receiving, or maybe even more depending on performance. Basically, the President has said, Mr. Speaker, very clearly that anybody 55 years and older and current retirees would be completely held harmless from any loss in their benefit. They would continue to receive what they are getting. There would be no changes. And now the President has actually, Mr. Speaker, taken it a step further. A week or so ago in a press conference, President Bush for the first time introduced the idea of progressive indexing and basically said this: those workers, those younger workers who are at the lower level of income, their initial check at retirement would continue to be based on average wages, so that they would absolutely not suffer any loss in their benefit. Yet they would have that option, if they wanted to, to take a small portion of their account, up to 4 percent initially, and put it in an individual savings account. It would be guaranteed that they would not take any loss of benefit, but there would be the distinct possibility, if you think about and look at the stock market over any 10-year period of time since its inception, that the return on that investment in that individual account would compound, would grow, would enjoy the miracle of compounding and they would have a much larger benefit at the end of the day than they would if they had not chosen that option combined with Social Security as we know it. I think the opportunity for us to come together in these late afternoon and evening sessions and talk to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and make sure that they understand so they can go back into their districts and explain to their constituents, we each represent 630,000-or-so great Americans, those people back home are receiving a lot of misinformation. They are getting these automated phone calls, they are getting these direct mail pieces paid for by 527s and the unions and God knows who, and the well is being poisoned. These people need to know. They need the facts. They need some honesty. I really appreciate the gentlewoman from Kentucky for giving us this opportunity to come together this evening and talk to our colleagues and make sure that they are listening and understand because we want what is fair and balanced; we want what is good for our parents and our grandparents, but we certainly want the best possible for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of strengthening one of the most important Federal programs, Social Security. This past Monday, Vice President Cheney graciously came to my district to talk to the good people of Georgia to talk about fixing Social Security for our future generations. At a town hall meeting at Campbell High School, one of the students stood up and said, Mr. Vice President, is Social Security going to be there for me when I reach retirement age. And the Vice President said, I hope so, son, but not unless we do something about it now. I am really astonished my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to put our children's retirement in jeopardy because they would rather use Social Security as a political weapon than an opportunity for bipartisan achievement. Mr. Speaker, anyone can criticize and obstruct; but it takes a leader to do the heavy lifting on a serious problem as our President and Vice President have done. I urge my colleagues to keep up the good fight because our children and their children are dependent on us to save Social Security.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule for the emergency supplemental appropriations act and the underlying bill. In addition to the needed funds to sustain military operations and reconstruction efforts in the Middle East, this legislation contains two key provisions that I would like to highlight. The first is language that ensures that funds in the bill will not be used to cancel the multiyear contract for C-130J procurement. Currently more than half the fleet of combat-ready C-130s is over 30 years old. Although their longevity is clearly a testament to the value of these critical aircraft, we should be very concerned that the C-130E and H models continue to age at alarming rates, putting our tactical airlift capability at risk in the near term. In fact, several weeks ago, the Air Force announced that they are grounding much of the C-130E models because of severe fatigue in their wings, including a dozen that have been flying missions in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, some of these planes were used in Vietnam, and we are literally flying their wings off in the Middle East. The Air Force has long anticipated the aging of the older models, which only makes it more remarkable that the multiyear contract to replace these planes has been carved out of the 2006 budget. Mr. Speaker, because of the growing problem that the Air Force faces in its tactical airlift program, I support the C-130J language, and I would like to express my sincere thanks to the appropriations chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the conferees for retaining this language. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the conferees for protecting the Real ID provisions of H.R. 1268. As our Rules Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), just mentioned, this would establish and rapidly implement voluntarily regulations for State driver's licenses and identification document security standards. It would increase the burden of proof of claiming asylum. It would synchronize terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and also facilitate the completion of the San Diego border fence. These provisions were recommended by the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan, 10 members; and they are important for securing our borders from illegal entry and possible terrorist activity. Our immigration laws are in need of reform, and I believe these provisions are a positive step in the right direction. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan Medicare Modernization Act, which Congress passed in December of 2003. In particular, I would like to praise the prescription drug benefit that is already providing seniors with more affordable medication under the Medicare-approved prescription discount cards. Mr. Speaker, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare estimate that our seniors will save up to 60 percent off the current price of their prescription drugs under this new benefit. Sixty percent, that is a huge savings. And our seniors are already reaping the benefits of Medicare prescription drug coverage. I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, the story of one such senior, a constituent of mine from Talbot County named Lizzie Menefee. Ms. Menefee lives in Talbot County, Georgia. She will be 80 this May. I met her at a town hall meeting I was holding on strengthening Social Security. Her story inspired me, and I wanted to share it with my colleagues here today and with seniors across our Nation. Ms. Lizzie, as her friends call her, has not lived an easy life, though you would never know it from her spirited attitude. She has a heart condition, she has high blood pressure, arthritis and one functioning kidney. As you might guess, her medical bills, in particular the cost of her monthly medications, are exorbitant. In fact, the cost of medication nearly bankrupted Ms. Menefee. It is easy to see why. She takes Zocor for her cholesterol, which is high. That medication runs $155 a month. Add another $140 for the purple pill, Nexium, which she takes to control her acid reflux and heartburn, and $20 a month for medication to lower her blood pressure. When Ms. Lizzie gets a kidney infection, and this happens often with her condition, she pays an additional $300 a month for antibiotics. Before Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, Ms. Menefee regularly spent more than $500 a month, Mr. Speaker, just on prescription drugs. As a senior with limited income and a widow, these costs were simply prohibitive. But there is good news for her and for all seniors out there. It comes in the form of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, part D, if you will. Last year, Ms. Lizzie signed up for the new temporary provision under Medicare, the discount card. She is incredibly happy with her coverage, and I can see why. Today this lady spends a mere $7 a month on prescription medication. Yes, you heard me correctly: $7 a month. Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of Ms. Lizzies out there who have benefited from substantial savings on their prescription drugs, and there are millions more not yet enrolled in the program who would benefit from these savings as well. When our seniors have to choose between buying food or buying medicine, their health suffers. Seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford $500 a month in medicine; heck, most of us cannot afford $500 a month. Congress undoubtedly, undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, did the right thing when we added prescription drug coverage under Medicare. And there is more we can do. In January 2006, the permanent Medicare drug benefit goes into effect. If our seniors do not know how to sign up, or if they do not understand the benefits that it offers, the good legislation we have passed will go to waste. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and educating our seniors about the extensive savings available to them through the Medicare drug benefit and to help seniors sign up for the plan that is right for them. Do not let the other side poison the well and scare our seniors and discourage them from signing up for this great plan. Nothing would make me happier than to have millions of Lizzie Menefees across our great Nation staying healthy because we helped lower the prices of the drugs that they need. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Congress on the successful legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to educate their constituents on this valuable benefit.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting that the Pelosi No Deal, my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) mentioned and I watched a little press conference that they had over the weekend or yesterday in regard to what the President had to say at his press conference Thursday night talking about progressive indexing. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the minority whip at that press conference said, ``Other than individual personal account options, there are at least a dozen other things that we can do to save Social Security.'' I would challenge him to name four. Name two. Give us one rather than this ``no deal'' that my colleague from Georgia was talking about because they do not want to talk about any of these dozen other approaches to solving the solvency problem of Social Security. Because some of those could be raising payroll taxes, cutting benefits, raising the age at full retirement. I could go on, but I think that is the reason, and I think my colleague from Georgia would agree, that they basically have a no deal and a hokey pokey plan, if you will, to save Social Security.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield for just a second, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because when he mentioned the Bankruptcy Reform Act and the fact that declaring bankruptcy was never meant to be part of someone's financial planning, it made me think of the gentleman's comments a little earlier in regard to the heavy lift, relatively speaking, of the Social Security modernization, but not nearly as heavy a lift as trying to do something about Medicare and Medicaid, and I just wanted to speak to that just briefly. First of all, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to suggest to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that we, the Republican majority, have done nothing about Medicare, when in fact we passed the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act in December of 2003, and we had the interim Medicare Discount Drug Card, which for our neediest seniors, gave a $600 credit per year for 2 years. That is $1,200 worth of free, much-needed prescription drugs for our neediest seniors. And the relief that we bring to them we have not yet seen but we will see it as 2006 begins, January, when part D, the Prescription Drug Act, starts. But in regard to the Medicaid system, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also say, well, why do we spend so much money on Social Security when what we really need to do is address the Medicaid problem. Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. We have a Medicaid problem. There is no question about it. But that Medicaid problem is primarily because of three things: Waste, fraud, and abuse. And I can put it in one phrase: Gaming the system. In fact, there are States in this great Nation that have figured out a way to leverage the system and draw down more Federal dollars and that sort of thing, and then use the money to cover other expenses that have nothing to do with health care, and that is gaming the system. We need to fix it, and we will. But these seniors and our children and our grandchildren that need Social Security, that problem exists not because they have gamed the system. And I think my colleague from Texas understands that so well, Mr. Speaker. These people, through no fault of their own, are not going to have something that they have paid into with their money. They had no choice. It was almost confiscated from their paycheck. So we have to solve that first. And I applaud the leadership for sticking to their guns on this. Not just the President, but, as I said earlier, our great majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and our Speaker of the House. They are right, we need to address this problem, do the heavy lifting, and worry more about the next generation than the next election. With that, I yield back to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), and of course before him the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman mentioned the spirit of bipartisanship. In that vein, let me just commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), who in the previous hour talked about the contribution of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, people like themselves who have contributed so much to this country. And I commend them for that. I found it to be a very interesting and compelling hour. And we, Mr. Speaker, can be bipartisan and need to be. We need to take every opportunity. There are so many issues, as my colleague from Texas just mentioned, that, I mean, things like health care and public education. These should not be partisan issues. Social Security modernization and saving that program for our children and grandchildren. It does not make sense that that will get involved in partisan bickering, but it does. But I think we need to understand and make sure that, as our colleagues know, that we can still make progress despite the fact that we have to run every 2 years and everybody is always kind of thinking about the next election and who is in control. Well, that is what a lot of this partisanship is about. But the way, Mr. Speaker and my fellow colleagues, that we make progress despite that tension is with great leadership, with great leadership. And I can think of none greater than the Speaker of this House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and our great majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who is a colleague from Texas of my friend, Representative Conaway. We have done so much, as he pointed out, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) also, in discussing the progress that we have made in these first 100 days of this 109th Congress. It is truly amazing. And I think a lot of these things have already been mentioned, that we have accomplished, despite the fact that our leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has struggled because of unrelenting attacks from the other side, mainly for political reasons, quite frankly. It is a situation where if you go after the leader, if you are able to shoot the leader, then the rest of the troops might cower down a little bit. Thank God that has not happened. We have a very strong caucus on our side of the aisle. And, you know, we may have a Member or two that gets a little squishy and nervous, and that is regrettable. But I think the important thing is that the vast majority of us are very supportive, we are team players. When the going gets tough, as they know in Texas and as they know in my great home State of Georgia, the tough get going. That is what we have seen from our leader. There is a country song, if you want to play in Texas you got to have a fiddle in the band. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has a fiddle in the band; and not just in Texas but in this great country of ours, he is the straw that stirs the drink. And the courage that he has shown, the leadership, that is the reason why in these first 100 days of the 109th Congress that we have been able to accomplish so much. As has already been mentioned by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), we have passed the emergency supplemental, $81 billion, to support our troops in Iraq as they continue this battle to democratize the Middle East. And we are succeeding. We had great bipartisan support on that bill. Just last week, we passed the House budget resolution, which for the first time in, I think, over 10 or 12 years, we actually cut discretionary spending by a full percentage point; and we limited the growth of mandatory spending. It has been mentioned, of course, the permanent elimination of the death tax, which just passed this Chamber a couple of weeks ago. Class action reform, bankruptcy reform, the energy bill just last week, and all of these really remarkable pieces of legislation. There was an article, I think, Mr. Speaker, in the Hill or Roll Call this week talking about the 20 most important pieces of legislation that have come through this Congress in the last 40 or 50 years. I think they are going to need to revise that list, because quite honestly in these first 100 days we are beginning to do some historic things, and hopefully the other body will follow suit. But it is because of the leadership of people like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of this great House; and our majority leader. And I really commend him. He is a strong Christian man who has committed his life to family values. You know, Mr. Speaker, he was attacked relentlessly, and this quote may not be exact, but in regard to the Terri Schiavo case, and not just that case but a lot of decisions that are made, particularly coming from Federal Courts in the 9th Circuit out on the left coast, when they wanted to take God out of the pledge of allegiance, and make sure that the 10 Commandments are never shown in any public places, and that you cannot celebrate Christmas any more, it has to be winter holidays. And our leader said, the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior. Now, a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, want to say, well, Mr. DeLay is threatening our Federal judiciary. I do not think so. I do not think that is at all what he meant. Tom DeLay is a well-known born-again Christian. When he made that comment, I assumed he was referring to God, that that is who men and women of the Federal judiciary will have to answer to when they forget from whence we came. And I commend him for that. It was no threat, no personal threat on the part of our leader. So to have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be here tonight, to join with my colleagues, with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who is managing the time tonight, I commend him for that. And I just want to tell you how much confidence I have in leader Tom DeLay. He is someone that has the courage of his convictions, and they are not going to bring him down. They, those on the other side who want to get overly partisan and forget about what the people in this country really want, they want bipartisanship, they want good laws passed, they want tax relief, they want regulatory relief, they want good health care and good public education, and they want a balanced budget. And these are the kind of things that we are working toward under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I was talking a little bit earlier, Mr. Speaker, about this press conference that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, and others had today or maybe it was the end of last week. It included, of course, the minority whip, and they kept talking about the President, President Bush ought to be ashamed of himself for raiding the Social Security trust fund. Now, that is so disingenuous. The mendacity of that is appalling. The $1.7 trillion in the trust fund is gone and we all know, and I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, know, as we have tried to explain, the President explained, that money has been spent on other governmental functions. I am not saying that it was inappropriately spent. You spend a little bit more money on the veterans and on defense of this country. If you spend a little bit of money on agriculture, our farmers, education or K-12 and higher ed, these are legitimate costs of government. But this has been going on for 70 years, the trust fund has been raided, and during at least 50 of those 70 years, who has been in control of this Congress? I think we all know that, the Democrats. Then, for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, and the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, to suggest that this President has been raiding the trust fund is appalling. They know better. They know absolutely better that we have had deficit spending since 2001 and 9/11 and the dot.com bubble burst and having to stand up the Department of Homeland Security and go and fight the terrorists, not on our shores, and to prevent them from coming again and striking us here on our home land. Yeah, we have had some deficit spending. These are emergency times. We are in a shooting war, but this President has in no way, shape or form raided the trust fund. I think the Democrats ought to apologize for their leader, to give that kind of press conference knowing that that is not truth.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal 2006 budget conference report. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my support for permanent budget reform that will enable us to further restrain the growth of the Federal Government and Federal spending. Like many of my colleagues, I believe that streamlining the budget and eliminating the deficit are absolutely necessary and essential to the continued growth of our economy. While I might not agree with every detail of this conference report, and I even believe that a few more dollars could be saved, we must accept this compromise between the House and the Senate as a solid step in the right direction. Failure to pass a budget should not and cannot be an option. Only with the passage of this budget can we move forward with a blueprint to advance further fundamental reforms and save more of the people's money. Therefore, this budgetary blueprint will enable us to strengthen fiscal discipline, without endangering the current opportunity for budget reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by some of my colleagues who continue their steady drumbeat of support for increased taxes and increased spending. This is a dangerous philosophy, and will only destroy jobs and opportunities for working Americans. We cannot tax and spend the deficit away, Mr. Speaker. We cannot strengthen the economy with a tax- and-spend mentality. Mr. Speaker, we in the majority will never, let me repeat, never accept tax-and-spend policies as fiscally sound and fundamentally fair for the American taxpayer. The other side tries to hide their intentions for increased taxes by using phrases like ``rolling back the tax cuts.'' But, Mr. Speaker, they cannot fool the American people, because when they say ``rolling back,'' they mean increasing taxes for working Americans and small businesses. ``Rolling back'' means killing the almost 2.5 million jobs created over the past year. ``Rolling back'' means reversing the economic growth that has helped improve the lives of all Americans. ``Rolling back'' the tax cuts means rolling over the American taxpayer, and, Mr. Speaker, that would be simply unacceptable. Like the President, I reject any attempt to raise taxes. This budget does not raise taxes. It does, however, provide for continued tax relief. From tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, to relief to the alternative minimum tax, this budget puts money back into the pockets of American workers while funding our Nation's priorities and cutting the budget deficit. This budget also ensures the continued strength of our Armed Forces and homeland security through providing an increase in defense and homeland spending. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1997, this budget will include instructions for the Congress to find savings and mandatory spending this year, and additional savings over the next 5 years. This budget makes dramatic strides to reduce spending, and it forces Congress to tighten its belt and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support and encourage my colleagues to support this budget conference report.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.