Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman obviously speaks with passion and knows of what he speaks, and I suspect that we will be hearing more from him on this issue as we go forward in the 109th Congress because it certainly clearly needs to be addressed, and the time tonight, of course, is in the context of talking about freedom, talking about liberty, talking about the rule of law and what we are trying to share with the Iraqi people and other oppressed people of the Middle East and other parts of the world and other Arab nations who have not yet felt that fresh smell of liberty and democracy. So I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and speaking so eloquently. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to mention a couple of quotes that mean a lot to me, mean a lot to everybody who has ever heard them, mean a lot to this great country, mean a lot to Great Britain, but first of all, this one. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787. The blood of patriots indeed and the blood of tyrants indeed, and this is what we are talking about. This is a sacrifice that the Iraqi people have made on behalf of themselves and what we have been making on behalf of them over these nearly 2 years now as we have sacrificed our sons and daughters. The other quote: Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have ever been tried. Of course, Sir Winston Churchill. We are sharing, and that is what the President talked about during his inauguration address on January 20. That is what we are talking about, sharing. That is what he will talk about tomorrow night. God bless you, Mr. President, and God bless America.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and I sincerely appreciate her sharing that poignant testimonial, that anecdote from the Iraqi woman voting in those elections and what they wanted to share with the American people and to say not a simple but an elaborate thank you, a deep, heartfelt thank you. I really appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) sharing that with us, and I thank her for being with us this evening. It is truly amazing that our friends on the other side of the aisle spent one hour, the previous hour, of course, the determination of what they talk about just as our subject matter is made by our leadership. And their leadership decided, well, this was the great opportunity to attack the President on Social Security for the 21st century. They spent an entire hour and not one word, not a single word about this historic election, free elections in the Middle East for the first time in hundreds or maybe thousands of years. And certainly none of these people that had that opportunity, some of them literally stepping over pools of blood to get to that ink, to put on their finger that indelible ink, as my colleagues pointed out, that will not wash off, will not go away. It was a way to make sure that people voted once and only once and everything was secure. These people, not only were their lives at stake before they got to the polling place and while they were waiting in line, queuing up sometimes waiting hour after hour in the hot sun, in dust, in misery, waiting to vote, but then they dipped that finger in that indelible ink, knowing that for at least 2 days, maybe longer, there was no way they could get that off their finger. So they are putting their lives at risk even after the fact, but they did not care because they are brave, courageous, wonderful people, and I am extremely proud of them. I am disappointed that our friends on the other side of the aisle went 60 minutes without not one comment. They do not have to praise President Bush or the Republican majority or this leadership, but to not spend one word talking about what the Iraqi people did 3 days ago is just beyond any imagination. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here tonight and manage this time, and we do have one additional speaker before we get into conclusion and I do want to hear from the gentleman from Texas, but I just want to say, share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, some of the thoughts that I have had since this historic happening this past Sunday. We all represent maybe 630 or so thousand people in our districts across this great country; 435 of us who are Members of this body, this House of Representatives. And we have all suffered and our people have suffered, mainly our young soldiers men and women who have been in harm's way, Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen, some 1,600 maybe, close to 1,600 now, who were killed in action and others that we have gone and we have seen. Sometimes we visit them in theater, dying with them, or talking to them or maybe been out to Bethesda to see them struggling to recover from their injuries, proud that they have served this country and served it well. And I cannot help but think about three soldiers in my district, the 11th of Georgia, West Georgia, and its 17 counties. There have been more injured, but there are three that lost their lives in this conflict. I have been thinking about them for the last couple of days, as I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have reflected on the families, the loved ones from the funerals that they have attended over the last year and a half as we have paid this great sacrifice on behalf of the Iraqi people and freedom in this great world that we live in as the President talked about in his inaugural address just the other day. And I want to mention them. I want to mention them because I do not want to ever forget them. I do not want us to ever forget them. I want to think about them. I want to think about their faces. I want to think about the face of Command Sergeant Major Eric Cooke, whose uncle lives up in Calhoun, Georgia, in Gordon County just on the outskirts of my district, who, after serving almost 30 years this country in conflict, in battles in several venues, gave his life on Christmas Eve 2003, two days after I visited with him in theater. He went on a mission in a Humvee, and he took the shrapnel that probably was intended for somebody else, and he gave his life for this great country. I want to think about specialist Justin Johnston from Rome, Georgia, Floyd County, 19 years old when he joined the Army, barely 21 years old when he lost his life on Easter Sunday last year. And I think about Janet and Joe, his parents, his brother Josh and people that have paid this sacrifice and what did they give it for? What did their sons and daughters give up their lives for? Last but not least, I think about First Lieutenant Tyler Brown. Lieutenant Tyler Brown, president of the student body at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, just a few years ago, 26 years old at the time of his death, killed by a sniper in Iraq, just 2 weeks after being redeployed there from the demilitarized zone. No picnic. But Tyler Brown gave his life. He was a wonderful young man. His parents, I think about them. I see their faces as I stand here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I think about these people. I know that they have the comfort of knowing as well that their sons and daughters did not die in vain. I mention these three. There are many others. My colleagues, maybe they have there, maybe they have been to more funerals than I have been and seen more mayhem, but this is seared in my memory, and it always will be. When you go to Arlington, when you visit as a tourist, it is one thing, but when you go to Arlington to watch a young soldier whose family you knew and represented laid to rest, who died for our country, this is something of a totally different story. That is why I am proud. I am proud to talk about this tonight, and I am proud of these young men and women who have done this for us and served us so well. So that is what I want my colleagues to think about. Let me, before we use up all of our time, Mr. Speaker, and I get too carried away, I do want to introduce another Member on our side of the aisle, a new Member, a gentleman from the great State of Texas, a judge, a fine judge, a member of the appellate branch of the judiciary who might be a freshman Member, but he has got a lot of experience and a lot of things to share with us tonight, not only on this issue that we have been talking about for the last 45 minutes but also a point that is very near and dear to his heart as well. I proudly yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is absolutely right. I am pleased to have another physician Member with us tonight in my colleague from Florida, Dr. David Weldon. Dr. Weldon is an internal medicine specialist. I think I am recalling correctly that he is about to begin his sixth term in this august body and has certainly been a great mentor to both Dr. Burgess and myself as we came in 2 years ago as freshmen and really needed to get up to speed on the Medicare law and all the nuances of that. It is certainly a distinct honor and a pleasure to have Dr. Weldon join us this evening.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Florida so much. We appreciate him being with us tonight and sharing those thoughts. It is so important that he pointed out to our colleagues that this really is not just about doctors and their practice, Dr. Weldon's practice, Dr. Burgess, Dr. Gingrey, or an individual like this Dr. Leon Smith, Jr. I happen to know Dr. Leon Smith, Jr. He practices medicine in Athens, Georgia. I went to medical school with him. I knew him very well. Both he and his brother are OB-GYN physicians. His group, I think six or eight of them, recently stopped practicing, had to stop obstetrics and curtail their practice drastically because of this crisis. Dr. Smith was actually interviewed on ``60 Minutes'' on March 9, 2003. Here is what Leon said, Dr. Leon Smith, Jr.: ``We're giving up something I have always wanted to do because of the malpractice crisis after insurance premiums broke a million dollars.'' This is real life. This really puts a face on this problem. But as Dr. Weldon points out so vividly, it is a jobs issue because it is not just Dr. Smith and colleagues like him that have to give up their practices. It is the fact that small business men and women over the last 5, 6, 8 years are seeing double-digit increases in the amount that they have to pay for health insurance to provide to their employees. And they cannot do it. It is becoming the highest cost of them doing business. And a lot of small businesses fail. This is one of the main reasons that they fail. And so we are not just talking about doctors not being available to help patients. We are also talking about small businesses closing and people being out of work. I think it is so important that we keep that in mind as we try to address this crisis and try to do it in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Speaker, I want to show this last poster before I go on with some additional remarks, but this is pretty telling and the title of this poster is ``Show Me the Money.'' ``Show Me the Money.'' And I have heard, I am not sure who it was, maybe some wise, erudite talk show host recently say, If you want to know what the problem is, just follow the dollar. Follow the dollar. I can remember during the Medicare Modernization, Improvement, and Prescription Drug Act debate that we had on the floor of this House last year, this Medicare modernization, which we had not done in 38 years, and this prescription drug benefit, which seniors have been begging for, pleading for, been promised by previous Presidents and previous Congresses and nobody ever delivered, we finally delivered on that promise. And the criticism we received from the other side of the aisle was well, it was just a giveaway from the pharmaceutical industry. That is all it is. All these Republicans getting all this money from the big drug companies. And in fact, it was said, Mr. Speaker, by so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the pharmaceutical industry wrote the bill. I guess they think the doctors and hospitals wrote the original Medicare bill that was passed in 1965, but I do not think the doctors and the hospitals have done too well, but it has been a boon to seniors. Medicare has worked well. It is going to work even better. But while they were criticizing us purportedly for accepting money from pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, look at what is happening on this ``Show Me the Money'' poster. Why do Democrats put trial lawyers before patients? That is my question. That is the question I want my colleagues to answer for me. Seventy-four percent of the campaign contributions made by lawyers and law firms during the 2002 election cycle went to Democrats. I am not sure what the number is in 2004, but I imagine it is probably a little higher than that with a couple of lawyers on the Democratic ticket, one a trial lawyer who made his living suing doctors like me and my colleagues. Seventy-four percent of the campaign contributions made by lawyers and law firms during the 2002 election cycle went to Democrats. Over $87 million to Democratic candidates during that cycle. Seventy- four percent came to over $87 million. In fact, the average contribution to a House Democrat totaled $57,281. I like to think that we cannot be influenced by money, and I think that that statement is, in fact, true. I think most of my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle would agree with that. Men and women of honor and integrity. But these figures certainly have to be frightening, and maybe it is some of the explanation why, which has no reason to be partisan. A high-risk mom who desperately needs obstetrical care, she is not worrying about whether that white coat has an R or a D on its shoulders. She is looking for an M.D., of course, and this should not be a partisan issue. We need to get beyond that. It is too important. It is hugely important. Just as Medicare modernization, Social Security, these other issues, education, none of that should be partisan. So I hope that as we go forward in the 109th that we will all join together and finally get this job done. I was giving some numbers a little bit earlier, and I would like to give a few more. The number 29. Mr. Speaker, 29 is the number of years that California's comprehensive medical liability reforms have protected the State of California and their patients, physicians, and taxpayers. 1975 was when MICRA, Medical Injury Reform Compensation Act, was passed; 1975, 29 years ago. Since then premiums in the United States, the rest of the 49 States, have grown by 750 percent. In California premiums have increased only 245 percent. Another very telling statistic. Listen to this one. And I want my colleagues to listen carefully to this: $778,334, that is the amount a patient would receive for a $1 million jury award, an injured patient, a patient that deserves compensation, and we all are aware of that in many instances, $778,334, the amount a patient would receive for $1 million jury award by reforming the current contingency fee system. Now without any reform, a trial lawyer typically takes $400,000 or more of that settlement. That is not right. Mr. Speaker, that is not right. The people who are injured, the mom, the dad, the parent, the child, in cases that are not frivolous, somebody has practiced below the standard of care. Maybe it is one of my physician colleagues. Maybe it is a hospital. Maybe something happened in the emergency room. That patient has been injured and suffered and has significant economic losses, and they deserve fair and just compensation. But they are not getting it because of this contingency fee system which causes a lottery mentality among a lot of trial attorneys. Not all of them. Certainly not all of them. Most, in fact, I think are men and women of high integrity and provide a good service to their clients as they practice this subspecialty of personal injury. 3.9 million, and let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, 3.9 million, the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance if Congress were to pass commonsense reform. Almost 4 million more people would be able to afford health insurance. We have been talking about that issue ever since I have been here in this Congress about the 40 million or so mostly working Americans who cannot afford to have health insurance. Either they cannot pay their part of the premium or their employer cannot provide it for them. It is estimated with meaningful leveling of the playing field, not taking away anybody's rights, that an additional 4 million people would be covered by health insurance. I could go on and on with these numbers and statistics, but let me just talk a little bit in some of the time that we have remaining. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in the bill that we passed, the Health Act in 2003. That bill primarily puts a cap on noneconomic, so-called pain and suffering. But what it does not do is it absolutely does not limit recovery for injuries, economic losses; and in many cases those awards are in the several millions of dollars. But there is no way that one can put any estimate on pain and suffering or noneconomic losses. And that is the hallmark really of MICRA, the law that was passed in California, and it is a model that we know works. And as I said before, if this bill is passed, and I feel that we will pass it in the 109th Congress, any injured patient would be well compensated for the economic losses and any medical care that is needed as they go forward in the rest of their lives. Another provision in this bill is something that is called joint and several liability. I want my colleagues to understand this concept: joint and several liability. That is what exists today. That means that if 10 doctors are named in a lawsuit, it does not matter who is the major culprit or the one who practiced the least close to the standard of care. One of those physicians who had very little to do with the case could end up paying the whole judgment or the whole settlement just simply because they have the deepest pockets. In this law that we passed, the Health Act of 2003, it would be proportioned depending upon their degree of responsibility, as well it should be. Another provision is called collateral source disclosure. Collateral source disclosure simply means that a jury needs to know if an injured patient has health insurance, has disability income, because their injury has been eligible and is now receiving Social Security Disability benefits and by virtue of that is now eligible for Medicare. Under current law in most States, the jury is not permitted to know that as they calculate what a just and fair settlement or award should be. And, Mr. Speaker, that is what I would call double-dipping, and that is wrong. Another provision of course in the bill that I talked about a little earlier was contingency lawyer fees, and I think they ought to get paid and they will get paid and they will do very well. I do not believe there is a shortage of attorneys in the State of California. I do not see any of them coming to Georgia, thank goodness. I think they are doing well out on the west coast and will continue to do well. But if we are going to have a shortage, I think most of the Members of this body, my colleagues, would agree it is probably a lot better to have a shortage of lawyers than a shortage of doctors because we need access to health care. And that is what this is all about, that and job creation and to take some relief off the men and women who are trying desperately to provide health care to their employees. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor, really, and a pleasure to come here tonight and talk about something that is very near and dear to me as a physician Member of this body. And in closing, my plea to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my fellow Republicans and those Members of the other body is to think about that statistic that I gave them a little bit earlier. Seventy-five percent of the American people want this, and they are not going to wait any longer. And if they do not get it, they are going to hold them responsible in 2006 just as they obviously did in 2004.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague from Texas for joining us this evening for this discussion, and I appreciate his very accurate remarks. I know one thing he was talking about, physician access and which specialties doctors choose today based on this liability crisis. I want my colleagues to listen very carefully to this number: 48 percent, the proportion of American medical students in their third or fourth year of medical school who indicated that the liability crisis was a factor in their choice of specialty, threatening patients' future access to critical services. I am sure that Dr. Burgess would agree with me that when we were in medical school a few years ago, OB-GYN was one of the most popular specialties. It was the one that everybody wanted to go in. It was the compassionate, the feel-good specialty, delivering babies, being with a family, at what usually is the happiest day, the happiest moment of their lives, the birth of a child. Yet today because of this crisis, as he well knows, we are having fewer and fewer, not only fewer and fewer of our best and brightest students from college wanting to get into medical school and go into the practice of medicine in any specialty but particularly OB-GYN and general surgery and neurosurgery and some of these higher risk specialties.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, we just finished our elections, and we hear a lot of browbeating and weeping and gnashing of teeth from the other side of the aisle concerning what went wrong. Goodness gracious, what in the world went wrong? We thought we ran a good campaign. We were ready to elect a President, we were ready to take over the House, we were ready to get the majority in the House and the Senate, and none of those things happened. Of course the pundits are on television every day, 24 hours a day it seems, talking about exactly what went wrong. And there is a lot of talk, of course, about the issue of moral values, traditional family values, and Christianity. I am sure that that had something to do with it. But I will stand here today, Mr. Speaker, and say to my colleagues that I ran a race in which I won with 57.4 percent against an opponent on the other side of the aisle who I think was a very strong Christian man, a good man, and one who had great values. But he was running on a party platform that did not embrace those traditional values that mean so much to I think middle America and those of us where I come from in Georgia. But I think it goes beyond that. I think it goes far beyond that. And I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, as they try to play Monday morning quarterback and figure out what went wrong, to think about issues like medical liability reform and the fact that the Nation, 75 percent or more, the American people in every poll that has ever been done, are very much in favor of medical liability reform. And yet an issue like that, which really should not be a partisan issue, because there is absolutely no reason why access to health care and fixing a broken system should come down along party lines, certainly did become partisan. It did in this body, and it did in the other body. In March of 2003, the HEALTH Act was passed in this House Chamber, as my colleagues know, and there were Members of the Democratic minority who voted for the bill, but only a few, only a handful, and practically none in the other body. So today, as we stand here going into the 109th Congress and President Bush's second term, we once again have a chance, an even better chance, I think, to get medical liability reform passed because we have increased our margins in the other body. So there are a lot of reasons you can look back and try to figure out why you lost, but that is one, I think, that my Democrat colleagues need to take a close look at. When this issue comes before us in the 109th, if you want to do something positive, if you want to respond to the will of the American people, this is certainly a great first step. I would encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle and my fellow Republicans in the House and the Members in the other body that it is time. The American people want this. They need it. Access to health care is hugely important. We are seeing more and more physicians, and I will get to some specific numbers a little later regarding doctors in high-risk specialties, like neurosurgery, emergency room physicians, and OB-GYN, which is my specialty. I think all my colleagues know that in my prior life I practiced medicine for almost 30 years, and as a pro-life OB-GYN physician, delivering those 5,200 babies. Many of my colleagues in that specialty are dropping out at the very peak of their practice productivity, in their late 40s, early 50s. They are literally trading their stethoscopes for a fishing rod or a set of golf clubs. They do not want to do that, but they have been forced to. I have a number of posters here, Mr. Speaker, that I want my colleagues to pay attention to, which really give testimonials to the statistics. Maybe my colleagues know some of these individuals, or individuals just like them, or families who have suffered because, when they went to the emergency room, there was no emergency-room physician to take care of their injured child or their loved one who had had a stroke and needed immediate care from a neurosurgeon. Just look at some of these posters. This is talking about women's health care in particular. Women's Health in Jeopardy: A pregnant Texas woman was forced to drive 80 miles to a San Antonio hospital because her family doctor in her rural hometown had stopped delivering babies because of malpractice insurance concern. This was in the Fort Worth Star Telegram January of 2003. Nationwide, doctors are leaving and patients are suffering. Look at these people. Look at these physicians. I do not know if my colleagues can see some of these posters, but they are not saying ``Vote for George W. Bush, or Reelect Bush, or Vote For Kerry and Edwards, or I am a Democrat, I am a Republican.'' They are saying ``tort reform now.'' Insurance rates are driving doctors out of business. What good is insurance, health insurance, if you cannot find a doctor to provide the care, and on and on and on? Look at some of these headlines, Mr. Speaker: ``Doctors Protesting Skyrocketing Malpractice Premiums.'' Springfield State Journal Register, February 2003. ``Malpractice Insurance Prices Send Physicians to the Streets.'' USA Today, February 2003. ``Caps on Noneconomic Damages Most Common Solution Considered by States in Crisis.'' There are twelve States in crisis, and 30 more near crisis. If my colleagues do a little quick math, that is 42 out of 50 that are either in crisis or near crisis today. USA article, February 2003. ``Medical Malpractice Premiums Jump 50 Percent, Average Cost Tops $1.4 Million Per Hospital.'' PR news wire, January of 2003. It is not just the physicians; it is the hospitals that are suffering as well, many of whom are self-insured up to probably $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million; and it is literally driving the small rural hospitals out of business. And in so many instances, the hospitals and the school system might be the only two employers in a whole county, or the two major employers in a whole county. When you shut them down, you are talking about job loss. So this is really an economic issue. It is a health issue, no question about that. Lack of access to health care is a real tragedy and a real crisis, but we have heard for the last 2 years, as we led up to this Presidential election year, the other side of the aisle talking about President Bush being the only President since Harry S Truman who actually lost jobs on his 4-year watch. Three million of those happened to occur after the dot-com bubble burst and the recession that started during the Clinton administration. The rest of it occurred shortly after 9/11, which cost the economy of this country almost $3 trillion. The other side kind of changed their tactic, Mr. Speaker, as we began to grow jobs as those tax cuts for all Americans with their special emphasis on small businessmen and -women began to put people back to work. All of a sudden, when we gained 1.7, 1.9 million jobs back, then they had to change their tactics at the last minute. But make no mistake about it, this medical malpractice crisis and lack of access to care, and the fact that physicians are shutting their offices, it is a job issue as well because it is not simply one physician but in many cases it is 15 to 25 people who are actually employed in that office and all of them are without a job. Talk about outsourcing of jobs. We could have done a lot to prevent that right here in our own country with some meaningful leveling of the playing field with fair and balanced tort reform in regard to medical liability. Continuing with some of the posters, these are real-life situations that I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues. Michelle, a breast surgeon, serving more than 5,000 patients a year, experienced a 760 percent increase in malpractice insurance over an 8- year period of time. That is an average 76 percent increase per year. This was a testimonial on 60 Minutes in March, 2003. Doctors in rural Mississippi can expect to pay over $70,000 in malpractice premiums. Their average salary in rural Mississippi, certainly not an affluent State, about $72,000 a year. They are literally almost as much, not more, but almost as much in malpractice premiums as they are making in income and probably working 70 hours a week. Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, lost one-third of its neurosurgeons due to unrelenting problems with medical malpractice insurance. That is in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. Listen to some of these numbers. Talk about bullet points. This really cuts right to the chase. Let me give my colleagues a few numbers to ponder. America's medical liability crisis, we all pay for a broken system. The number 19, as I said at the outset of the hour, the number of States in a full-blown medical liability crisis in which the cost of frivolous lawsuit settlements and jury awards cost physicians' medical liability premiums to skyrocket. As a result, patients lose access to care when physicians are forced to give up parts of their practice, such as delivering babies or performing high-risk surgery. Mr. Speaker, 72 percent of Americans favor a law that guarantees full payment of lost wages and medical expenses but limits noneconomic damages. That is the point that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to miss. We spend all this money on polling. We poll and run TV ads, and then we send out mailers depending on what the public perception is of an issue. And 72 percent, talk about a plurality, a supermajority of Americans understood this issue, and clearly today understand that we are a country in crisis in regard to our health care delivery system. They want change, they want fairness, and yet my colleagues who have a lot of heartburn over this recent election are still trying to figure out what went wrong. Certainly they were wrong on that issue. The figure of $70 billion to $126 billion a year, the cost of defensive medicine which could be significantly reduced by medical liability reforms. Now we just passed yesterday an increase in the debt ceiling of $800 billion. There was a lot of rhetoric from the other side and a lot of complaining about the runaway deficits and the growing, burgeoning debt. With medical liability reform, it is estimated that we would save the government close to $40 billion a year. Keep in mind that the Federal Government really pays about two-thirds of all of the health care in this country with four programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare for our military personnel and their dependents, and our VA health care system. If we put all of those programs together, we are talking about two- thirds of the health care costs in this country the Federal Government pays. If we had some meaningful tort reform and doctors did not have to do all this defensive medicine and add all of these additional tests which we know and the hospitals know are totally unnecessary in many instances, but doctors are just trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit, if we could get all of that out of the system and go back to just practicing common-sense medicine, this is the amount of savings we would incur. Then we would not have to increase that debt limit. I am very pleased tonight, Mr. Speaker, to be joined by one of my colleagues on my side of the aisle and a fellow physician, not only a fellow physician but also a fellow OB/GYN physician. He has not practiced quite as long as I have nor delivered quite as many babies as I have, but he is one fine doctor and a fine Congressman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the reverend Dr. Bob Patterson for his message today. Bob is no stranger to the halls of the United States House or to Georgia congressmen named Phil. When he was a young man growing up in Hall County, Georgia, in the 1970s, he was appointed to serve as a House page by then Congressman Phil Landrum, and later, he was on detached duty with the House Press Gallery during the Nixon impeachment inquiry. But Bob did not answer to the siren song of politics. He returned to Georgia to finish college, and then he headed to Texas for seminary. Ministers are not known for staying in one place too long, but Bob has made his home at the First Baptist Church of Warm Springs, Georgia, since 1986. Warm Springs, Georgia, should sound familiar to those who take a strong interest in American history. Even before he was elected President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a frequent visitor and a part- time resident. He was convinced that the warm spring water that existed there had a healing effect on his polio, and he set up an institute in this west Georgia community where other victims of the disease, many of them children, could come for care. FDR built a house in Warm Springs that is known as the Little White House, and it was in this house in 1945 that the President died. FDR saw Warm Springs as a place to serve others, and Bob Patterson has carried on that tradition in the heart of Meriwether County. The thesis for his doctoral dissertation was entitled ``Developing a Need- Based Community Ministry Strategy for First Baptist Church in Warm Springs.'' He has personally ministered to the needs in his local community by serving the Family Connection initiative. In fact, he has been honored by both the Rotary and the Pilot clubs for his outstanding contribution to all of Meriwether County.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor indeed to be a part of this time tonight to introduce our new Members of the Republican majority, and it is my distinct pleasure to talk about three of them, two who are from my State of Georgia who will be representing the sixth and the eighth congressional districts. First of all, let me talk briefly about Dr. Tom Price. Dr. Price is an orthopedic surgeon. I have known him for many years. He served in the Georgia senate for 8 years, the past 8 years, and actually was a mentor to me when I was first elected to the senate and served for 4 years. Dr. Price at that time was the minority whip and went on to become the first senate majority leader, Republican majority leader, in the history of the Georgia general assembly. As I say, Dr. Price has practiced medicine in northwest Atlanta for over 20 years as an orthopedic surgeon. He comes to the Congress to represent the sixth district and will do an absolutely fantastic job as he did in the Georgia general assembly. And it is certainly my honor, as a physician Member, to have a fellow physician serving with me. I think that will make eight or nine physician Members, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Congress, and to have two of them from the State of Georgia and actually two who represent the same county, Cobb County, that has got to be unprecedented. Tom Price is married to his wife, Elizabeth, Betty, who is also a physician; and they have a 12-year-old son, Robert. It is a great honor to be able to introduce Dr. Price for the very first time this evening to my colleagues in the House. Representative Lynn Westmoreland will be representing the Eighth Congressional District of Georgia, the district that has been represented so effectively by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for the past 12 years. Lynn Westmoreland is from Sharpsburg, Georgia. He and his wife, Joan, have three children and three grandchildren. Lynn has served in the Georgia House for 12 years and 2 years ago became minority leader. Lynn led the Georgia house as minority leader and was very instrumental in this last election cycle when Georgia finally took over control of both the senate and the house. And I think a great deal of credit goes to these two gentlemen, Dr. Tom Price, who will be representing the sixth congressional district, and Representative Lynn Westmoreland in the eighth. I share counties with both of these Members. I commend them to my colleagues. They will work tirelessly in a bipartisan fashion as we continue the leadership that we have in this great body. Last but not least, it is my distinct honor to introduce to the Members Representative Bobby Jindal. Bobby will be representing Louisiana's First Congressional District. He was born and raised in the State of Louisiana. He has served as a public servant in both health and education. Before entering politics, he served as Secretary for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. And most recently he was appointed by President Bush as a health policy adviser to the administration. Bobby Jindal has also served as president of the University of Louisiana system, and during his tenure, the universities there raised their graduation and retention rates, increased private donations and the number of endowed chair positions. A graduate of Brown University and a graduate degree from Oxford, Bobby Jindal has received the National Jefferson Award by the American Institute for Public Service and the Christus Health Advocacy Award for Leadership. He has been married to his wife, Supriya, for 6 years and is the father of two children, Selia Elizabeth and Shaan Robert. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, it is indeed an honor to be part of this Special Order as we introduce the new Republican Members of the 109th Congress. We look forward to working with them.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay homage to the life of a fallen American hero, U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant Tyler Hall Brown of Atlanta, Georgia. Lieutenant Brown was killed by sniper fire on September 14, 2004 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, a town 70 miles west of Baghdad. Tyler was leading his unit on a reconnaissance patrol in the Iraqi town when he and his unit were ambushed by insurgents. He was a heroic leader to his men even until his passing as he, though mortally wounded by the sniper's shot, was able to give a warning to his men, preventing any others from being injured. His fellow officer, Captain Daniel M. Gade considered Lieutenant Brown one of the finest officers he'd known, saying that he was an inspirational leader, both on and off the field of battle who during numerous enemy contacts, was calm, leading his men with bravery and aplomb. He loved his men, and they loved him in return. That is how Tyler lived life, a born leader, a born officer that had a passion for people and a passion for life. His leadership qualities were identified early. While President of his high school senior class at Woodward Academy, his classmates considered him a politician in the making; patriotic, red, white and blue to the core; and figured he could even become President of the United Stated some day. After high school, Tyler proudly followed in the footsteps of his father, Carey and his older brother, Brent to Georgia Tech, which is my alma mater. At Georgia Tech, Tyler served as President of the Student Government Association for the 1999-2000 academic year, a position that his father had also held while in school. His hard work, dedication, and commitment to inclusion inspired fellow students to become more involved on campus and to get the most out of their college days. Tyler graduated in 2001 with dual Bachelor of Science degrees in management and in history, society and technology. Commissioned from the ROTC program at Georgia Tech, he earned paratrooper's wings and completed the rigorous Army Ranger training course before joining the Army's 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry, based at Camp Hovey in Tongduchon City, Korea. Tyler was among 3,600 troops of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division deployed to Iraq in early September from South Korea. He had only been in Iraq 2 weeks when he was killed. Tyler had been approved for service in the Army's famous 3rd Infantry Regiment, known as the Old Guard, one of the oldest and most respected Infantry Regiments in the United States Army. The Old Guard has the responsibilities of guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, serving as the Army's ceremonial unit and, as an active and well-trained Infantry Regiment, the 3rd Infantry is also responsible for the protection of Washington, DC. Instead of accepting this prestigious assignment he chose to go to Iraq with his men. That decision exemplified his life, putting the good of others in front of his own interests. On September 28, Tyler finally was joined with the Old Guard as they escorted him to his final place of rest with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery. He was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, and the Combat Infantryman Badge for his heroic service. I had the privilege of being present at his interment and to pay respect to a young man who in only 26 years had made a difference and touched more lives than many do in their entire life. As the bugler began to play taps and the honor guard fired a rifle volley salute, I couldn't help but look around at some of those lives who stood beside me and see the heaviness in their hearts and the sadness in their eyes, but I could tell we were saying goodbye to a truly special individual. My heart went out to the Brown family, a proud American family giving so much to their country, as the flag that draped Tyler's coffin was folded and presented to his mother, Sally, and the medals that had been earned by the ultimate sacrifice were placed into the hands of his father. The heavy rain that fell down that day was fitting to the somber mood created by this loss. Tyler Brown was a young man, a son, a brother, a friend, an officer, a leader who left this world with so much potential and so much ahead of him. His brother Brent said that Tyler ``died for the country he loved, doing what he wanted to do. He lived well and died a hero. He lived life to the fullest, he truly did. He became a role model to me.'' Mr. Speaker, Tyler Brown in his life and in his death has become a role model to me, a role model for all of us. I salute his service to our nation, the love he showed to his family and all those with whom he came into contact. We know that he is in a better place now and pray this knowledge will provide some measure of comfort for his family in the days ahead. Mr. and Mrs. Brown along with the entire Brown family are to be commended and honored for their sacrifice and my thoughts and prayers remain with them as they endure this difficult time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), our chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, our sailors, airmen and Marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, this is the year of the soldier, and this ``soldiers' bill,'' as the chairman describes it, does a remarkable job of covering a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services. From improving the Survivor Benefit Program to a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, this conference report addresses the most pressing needs of our troops in a very trying time for America. For our Reservists who have been activated, this bill will provide TRICARE standard coverage for them and their families while they are working to get their feet back on the ground when they return home. For every 90 days consecutive active duty service, the Reservists and their families are eligible for 1 year of TRICARE coverage while on nonactive duty status. For our deployed soldiers, this conference report contains $728 million for new up-armored Humvees, $100 million for vehicle armor kits, and countless other provisions to protect our troops on the ground. I am also grateful for the work the House Committee on Armed Services has done to fund the F/A-22 program this year. The funding for 24 planes will go a long way towards providing stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a man whose selfless service keeps the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District safe each and every day. I recently had the privilege of attending a Public Safety Appreciation Breakfast to honor Officer Andrew Phillips of the Marietta Police Department with the Award of Merit. The Award recognizes a public safety employee for an act of bravery involving great personal risk and saved lives. Officer Phillips was nominated for an incident in March, 2004, where he placed his life in jeopardy to protect other officers who had been shot as they were executing a search warrant in Mableton, Georgia. Instead of retreating, he pressed forward and returned the perpetrator's gunfire until the man surrendered. By putting other's safety above his own, Andrew Phillips exemplified the highest bravery and professionalism in police work. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Officer Phillips of Georgia's 11th Congressional District.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time and giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 10 and the provisions within the legislation that will protect the Department of Defense's vital control of military intelligence capabilities. All of us in Congress must tread carefully as we evaluate how we will reform the United States intelligence community. When I first became a physician and took the Hippocratic Oath, I swore to do no harm. Today I think this oath is very relevant to our current efforts. I believe that most Members of Congress see the tremendous value of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and they want to enact sound and carefully crafted legislation that will embrace the concept of a National Intelligence Director. However, we must not blindly surrender all authority to this new NID without considering the direct and specific needs of our brave troops stationed around the world. I believe, as written, the House version of the bill embraces this careful balance between giving the new NID ``proper'' authority over our Nation's intelligence assets and protecting the specific needs of our troops. In a recent op-ed that the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), wrote, he summed up this intricate balance very well when he said, ``At stake is more than just a bureaucratic reshuffling exercise inside Washington. The reforms Capitol Hill ultimately endorses could impact how the Department of Defense provides critical up-to-the-minute intelligence to our troops, America's sons and daughters who are fighting insurgents and terrorists worldwide. Before leaping, Congress must be certain that any bill it passes does not endanger their lives and missions.'' One specific way that H.R. 10 ensures that the military's intelligence lifeline remains intact is it limits the funds the NID can transfer from the defense agencies that directly support our troops to $100 million a year, while simultaneously retaining the NID's flexibility to manage the overall funds. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is a carefully crafted bill, and I believe will go a long way in protecting our troops abroad and our citizens at home, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Fire Captain Rick Bennett, a man whose selfless service keeps the citizens of Georgia's 11th district safe each and every day. This past Monday morning, I had the privilege of attending a Public Safety Appreciation Breakfast to honor Captain Bennett of the Cobb County Fire and Emergency Service. The award, Public Safety Employee of the Year, is given annually to an individual who has performed with exceptional skill, expertise, and innovation. Captain Bennett has worked for Cobb County for 13 years and is assigned to one of the busiest stations in the county, Fire Station No. 8 in Kennesaw, Georgia, where he is responsible for eight fire and hazmat personnel. Captain Bennett is considered an expert in the field of hazardous material response and training and recently was invited to instruct at the State Fire Academy. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's first responders are the brave souls risking their lives to prevent catastrophe, and Captain Bennett exemplifies the type of quality public safety employee that Georgia's 11th Congressional District has to offer, and he deserves our heartfelt thanks. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join in congratulating Captain Bennett for his fine work.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nevada and the gentleman from Michigan for introducing House Resolution 805 to bring awareness and express support for runaway youth prevention programs. As the author of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act, which was signed into law by President Bush almost a year ago today, I believe it is important to protect our children from early tragedy. As some of my colleagues may remember, H.R. 1925 reauthorizes and amends the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act and extends the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children and other program activities annual funding through the year 2008. As an OB/GYN physician for almost 30 years and as a legislator, I have made it a priority to protect and defend children. The future well-being of the Nation is dependent on the value placed on young people and the opportunities provided for youth to acquire the knowledge, the skills and the abilities necessary to develop into safe, healthy and productive adults. I care about the safety of all youth and I want to end the vicious cycle that creates broken families and unwanted children. With statistics indicating that one out of seven children run away from home before the age of 18, I believe we need to work to promote and encourage organizations that help children vacate dangerous homes and prevent others from making hasty and, oftentimes, unsafe decisions to leave. Mr. Speaker, with November being National Runaway Prevention Month, I believe it is important for Congress to recognize effective runaway youth prevention programs so we can save lives and prevent tragedy. National Runaway Prevention Month will educate young people about the risks associated with running away from home and the resources available to them should they run away or be expelled from home. During the month of November, communities across the country will sponsor activities to celebrate National Runaway Prevention Month. Planned activities include inviting lawmakers, media, community leaders and others to visit programs that serve youth, organizing community service events and developing materials and presentations to educate youth, parents, teachers, law enforcement officials, businesses and other community members about local resources available to youths in crisis. With the future well-being of our children at stake, I ask my colleagues to pass this resolution and support National Runaway Prevention Month.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for bringing H.R. 5186, the Taxpayer Teacher Protection Act, to the floor this evening. As a sponsor of H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, I believe it is important to permanently end excess student loan subsidies and to redirect savings to expanding loan relief for teachers of key subject areas in high-poverty, K-12 schools. The Ready to Teach Act was designed to benefit efforts in recruiting and training the best teachers to fill much-needed vacancies in subject areas such as math, science, foreign language and special ed. Every child deserves an opportunity to achieve a quality education, and I believe H.R. 5186 will aid these efforts so that every child is given a chance to succeed to the best of his or her ability. The Taxpayer Teacher Protection Act redirects the excess loan provider profits to student loan relief for teachers. High-poverty schools are struggling to find highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers. This bill would more than triple loan forgiveness for teachers of these key subjects who agree to teach in title I schools for at least 5 years. The expanded loan relief for math, science, and special education teachers will help States and schools recruit and retain the teachers they desperately need. This bill will help schools place a highly qualified teacher in every public school classroom, as called for by the bipartisan No Child Left Behind bill. President Bush called on Congress 8 months ago to shut down the excess lender earnings received through the 9.5 percent floor. I support President Bush in his commitment to finding commonsense solutions to our education problems. Removing the 9.5 percent subsidy will help our most stressed schools fill vacancies with much-needed quality instruction, and I ask my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), as well as the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the floor today. On December 8, 2003, I introduced House Resolution 481 to bring attention to an often-overlooked group of hunters and meat processors who help feed thousands of homeless and hungry people each year. It was my intention to draft a resolution that would praise Hunters for the Hungry programs across our country in many States, all States, and encourage new and innovative ways of addressing our Nation's hunger problem. Although these organizations have various names, depending on the State or region of the country, Hunters for the Hungry organizations show the humanitarian and kind-hearted spirit of our Nation's hunting community. Hunters for the Hungry programs are volunteer and cooperative efforts among hunters, sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors, and hunger relief organizations. All of these groups work together to help feed those in need. Over the past 3 years, such programs have brought hundreds of thousands of pounds of excess venison to homeless shelters, to soup kitchens and food banks, feeding thousands of needy people. Each year, donations have multiplied and programs now find themselves overflowing with thousands of pounds of meat and, at times, they cannot even cover the cost of processing, packaging, storing, and distributing the meat. Hunters for the Hungry programs are great examples of community service. They serve to feed the needy and to prevent waste. Meat is a rare commodity for agencies serving the needy, and a supply of venison from the Hunters for the Hungry will typically provide the best meal these needy people have had for weeks or even months. Most importantly, Hunters for the Hungry organizations serve as a great example of how our Nation can address issues like hunger without government intervention. These organizations receive no government money, and they operate from donations and volunteer service. We must revise the awareness of these organizations so they can solicit more monetary donations and volunteers. As Josh Wilson, the operations director for the Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry program put it, ``I know it is quite encouraging to our FHFH coordinators and to the other venison programs to know that their efforts are noticed and appreciated.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to speak in one voice of encouragement and gratitude to these organizations for all of their community service.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the honorable chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means. I know she has got a very busy evening, as all of her evenings here in the Congress are just jam-packed with other obligations, for her to come by tonight and help us share this time and explain, as I said earlier, you can see what I am talking about, she makes it so clear and understandable. I invite her to stay as long as she can, and if she needs to leave, I understand that, but I am very, very appreciative of her work and her expertise. I thank her so much. What I wanted to say, just kind of in following up on some of her remarks, this is a bipartisan bill. This new Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act that preserves, protects, strengthens and simplifies Medicare as we know it, that is what we are talking about, and I am proud that it was a bipartisan vote. There were some Members on both sides of the aisle who were concerned about the bill, for different reasons, and voted against it. I think 28 of my Republican colleagues actually voted against passage of this bill, and remember what they said when they came down and spoke against the bill and in a vote of conscience voted against it? They thought that the bill was costing too much; we could not afford it. We could not afford to deliver on this promise. Their concerns with the deficit, of course, are understandable. Their concerns with the need to continue to successfully wage this war against terrorism and to win is very understandable. So these 28 Members, my colleagues on my side of the aisle, voted no. They wanted to do it. They knew it was a good program that they felt its time had come, but yet did not think we could afford to do it. They voted no. I think it is an accurate statement to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats who voted against the bill, most of them felt that we were not doing enough. Another one of those Medicare tactics I was talking about in this Halloween season is, the hole in the donut is too big; the hole in the donut is big enough to drive a truck through. So they wanted to do more. In fact, the proposal that I heard from a number of Members on the other side of the aisle who voted ``no'' was, well, let us close that hole in the donut so we give better coverage to everybody, especially good coverage to those needy seniors that the gentlewoman from Connecticut was talking about. But that bill would have cost us something like $2 trillion over a 10-year period of time. And we certainly could not afford that. Yet, for whatever reason, those who felt like we were not doing enough and we needed to do more, and those who felt like even though we were not doing enough we could not even afford that much, that was a vote of conscience on their part. And that is understandable. But the bill did pass in a bipartisan fashion, a much wider margin, I might add, than the other body, than the Senate. But my Republican colleagues who voted ``no,'' a vote of conscience, you do not hear one single voice from my side of the aisle going around and scaring seniors and telling them do not accept a Medicare prescription drug discount card, this interim program, which is available right now. And many of those beneficiaries are eligible for that $600 credit. All they have to do is pick up the telephone, 15-minute conversation, and they have got that prescription drug discount card, which probably lowers the cost of their prescriptions maybe 20 percent, if it is a brand-name drug, possibly up to 40 percent if it is generic, in addition to the $600 per year or $1,200 over the course of the interim program. You do not hear my friends who voted ``no,'' a fiscally conservative vote, you do not hear them telling the seniors not to sign up for those cards. But you do hear that from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted ``no.'' Again, a vote of due conscience because they thought we were not doing quite enough, that we needed to do more. Wish we could. Hopefully, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, as we go further along into this program, we will be able to do more; and we will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try to make it a program, which is already a great first start, even better as we go forward, as we can better afford to do more. Oh no, that is not enough for them. They have to scare seniors, and they have been doing it ever since December of 2003. Not just this Halloween season, but of course the rhetoric is getting a little more heated now because not only are we getting close to Halloween but we also are getting closer to November 2, and we all know what November 2 is. So it is all about who gets the credit or, from their perspective, who gets the discredit. They want to scare the seniors enough and tell them do not even accept the prescription drug discount card, when they can get $600 a year credit in their medications and, in many instances if they are a low-income senior, will cost them nothing. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. The gentlewoman from Connecticut was talking a little bit about the basic program, the part B, the insurance program, that will be available as a voluntary option in January 2006. For the average senior whose income is, let us say, more than $18,000 to $20,000 a year, this is what the program will cost. And I want to call my colleagues' attention to this slide. Basically, $35 a month premium, a $250 deductible per year, and then 25 percent copay. That means the good news is Medicare and the general taxpayer, those individuals who are still out there in the workforce paying that payroll tax, cover 75 percent, up to $2,250. Now, yes, there is a gap in coverage. This is what we refer to as the hole in the donut. And beyond that point, until the senior has spent $3,600 out of pocket, there is no coverage and the senior has to pay 100 percent. That is the part we are going to improve as time goes on. But the good news in that, the glass being half full and not half empty, is that when they reach that point, then the coverage is 95 percent insurance and 5 percent copay. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to pay attention to this next slide, just to give them an example of some of the savings that will be affected by this interim prescription drug discount program. If a senior is paying today $100 per month for prescription drugs, and believe me those who have had those town hall meetings and talked to their seniors, many of them are paying $100 a month, some are paying $500 a month and more. But let us just take $100 a month. They will have an annual savings of $773, basically reducing their annual prescription cost for drugs, for prescription drugs, by 64 percent. Let us take another example. Let us say it is $500 a month. Let us say it is a senior, someone like myself, who has had a little heart surgery and is on four medications a month, each one of them costing $100-plus. Pretty quickly they are up to $500 a month. Well, this prescription drug plan, over a period of a year, is going to save them $2,700, reducing their annual cost by 45 percent. Let us continue. How about $800 a month? How many have relatives, parents, or grandparents who may be on six or eight prescription drugs a month and they are paying over $800 a month? The annual savings, $5,871, some 61 percent reduction of their annual cost for prescription drugs. Simply amazing. Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Honorable Speaker Tip O'Neill who said a few years ago ``all politics is local,'' so let me spend a few minutes talking about my district, the 11th in Georgia. I want to call my colleagues' attention to this slide. In Georgia's Eleventh Congressional District alone, the average senior will save $1,488 off their prescription drug costs over 18 months. Over an 18-month period of time $1,488 savings. That is not pocket change. That is certainly not pocket change for seniors, many of whom are on a fixed income. These savings represent 42 percent off of the typical senior's drug cost. In fact, it is estimated that prescription drug savings for the State of Georgia, all the seniors in the State of Georgia will reach $186 million; $186 million. That will certainly help the bottom line in Georgia, and the bottom line especially for our needy seniors. I also want to call attention to this next slide. This is just a typical example of what a Medicare prescription drug discount card looks like. And I guess the most important thing here, and I know we have 1.8 million seniors who have these, but we want more to take advantage, because the time is slipping away and the opportunity to get that credit that so many of them are eligible for. We do not want them to lose that opportunity. But the most important thing about this card is that it has the Medicare seal of approval. That way you know that that is the real deal. That is the card. There will be plenty to choose from. They are available now. In fact, they have been available since June 1 of this year. It is time for our seniors to reject the Mediscare rhetoric and get these cards. Sign up for them. All you have to do is pick up that telephone and dial 1-800- Medicare, and they will walk you through the steps in 15 or 20 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is another slide that I am calling my colleagues' attention to; and basically what it reflects in the respective States is how many Medicare beneficiaries are there who will actually pay no more than $5 per prescription under this new Medicare Modernization Act and Prescription Drug Bill. The State that, of course, jumps off the page at me is my State. I am sure my colleagues feel the same as they look at this slide and pick out their State, whether you are from the West, the North, the East, the South, or wherever, or in the heartlands. When I look at Georgia, the great State of Georgia, and realize that 233,000, 233,000 Georgians under this new plan, because of their income, because they are on a fixed income, maybe they are below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, the most that they will pay on this program is $5 per prescription. That is it, $5 per prescription. That is 233,000 in the great State of Georgia. We have some tremendous strains, of course, in the Medicare program. I mentioned at the outset how tough it is for the physicians to stay in the program, that it is not a giveaway. Part B is not a giveaway to the doctors. Fortunately, many, through compassion, are staying in the program. But it is certainly no giveaway. And for sure no giveaway to our hospitals is part A. And, parenthetically, part D, the prescription drug part, is no giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. But just look at this slide, my fellow colleagues. Look at this and pick out your State and see the benefit to your hospitals, especially your rural hospitals, that are struggling so badly to keep those doors open. Outside of the school system, they are probably the largest employer in your county, in your congressional district. Just look at the benefit that your State gets through the hospitals under this program. Here again, I go right to Georgia, and that is where it is most important to me. Over $550 million worth of benefit to the hospitals, especially the rural hospitals in the State of Georgia. That is $550 million, almost half a billion dollars. This is a Godsend to these hospitals. And that is what we are doing with this Medicare and Modernization Prescription Drug Act. Mr. Speaker, I realize we are coming to the close of our hour, which has been, I think, a good time to spend talking with my colleagues and making sure that everybody understands. We have done something very historic in this 108th Congress. We have finally delivered on a promise that was made a long time ago. Thirty-eight years is a long, long time for our seniors to wait for a prescription drug benefit to modernize this Medicare program, which is still in the 20th century. The rest of us, those of us who are not yet quite 65, although some Members of this body are, we have a benefit plan that has an emphasis on wellness, on prevention, and making sure that catastrophic illnesses do not occur to us. This is such an important point to remember that including a prescription drug benefit may very well, in the long term, over a 10- year period of time, result in some savings to the Medicare program. Yes, we are estimating it might cost $500 billion over 10 years, but I want my colleagues to understand that it will only cost $500 billion over 10 years if it does not work. Because I would suggest that if it does work, and I sincerely believe as the President believes in this compassionate effort to finally deliver that we are going to reduce the cost of Medicare that we spend on part A, the hospital part, we are going to keep people out of the hospital. We are going to reduce the cost of part B, the part of Medicare that we spend on physician reimbursement because we are not going to be doing as much open heart surgery. We are not going to be doing as much renal dialysis and kidney transplants. We are not going to have as many people in the nursing homes for the rest of their lives who are trying to recover from a CVA, or, as you know it, a stroke, because these seniors will be able to control that high blood pressure that heretofore they could not. They knew they had it but they could not take their medication, and the only benefit they get is when a catastrophe has occurred. I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to talk to them tonight about this great program that is going to only get better. I think it is time to stop scaring our seniors. We have got 27 days before Halloween. We have got about 30 days before our elections. Let us take the politics out of this. Let us not try to ride our reelection train on the back of our seniors by scaring them over this program. It is unconscionable to do that. They deserve so much better. And you are better. I know that. We get awfully partisan up here sometimes, but when we talk out in the halls or we realize that we are all basically the same, we have got families, we have got children, we have got grandchildren, we have got seniors in our district, let us all work toward the betterment of them through this program and quit scaring our seniors. Beyond this Halloween and this election and going forward in the 109th Congress, we will make this program even better than it is now.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) very much, and if she will, I would like for her to go over that a little bit because I think there is still a lot of confusion about that, and if the gentlewoman can take a few more minutes and explain that. I know the Members would appreciate hearing from her.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to come before my colleagues on the House floor this evening to spend an hour with them talking about the new Medicare Prescription Drug part D and Medicare Modernization Act, which was passed in December 2003 in a bipartisan fashion by this body and signed into law by President Bush. But before we get started, I want to spend time going through a lot of the nuances of this bill and make sure that all of my colleagues, and especially, of course, if some seniors and people that are watching this body and paying attention to what we say here on this floor, it will help them better understand, and I think we will have spent a very, very beneficial hour this evening. Before I get started, I cannot help but think about, this is October 4, the fall of the year, the most beautiful time of the year in many parts of this great Nation of ours, especially in my home State of Georgia and my 11th Congressional District in the northern part of the State. In 27 days will be one of my favorite holidays, and I am sure my colleagues would agree with me that Halloween, Halloween is always one of the most fun times of the year, especially if you have children, as I have. Now they are adults. I also now have precious grandchildren. What an exciting thing to go door to door in your neighborhood, in a safe environment, trick or treating, maybe even scaring people a little bit, scaring other kids with the costumes and the spooks and the goblins; and every now and then, if you do not get a good treat when you knock on somebody's door, some mean old, grumpy adult, you will scare them too. But what we are seeing today in this body, maybe because it is a Presidential election year, but all of a sudden, Halloween does not seem so funny to me anymore, because what I am seeing from Members of this very body is adults scaring adults. And not just scaring adults, but scaring specific adults, and that is the great senior citizens of this country. In fact, I call these scare tactics, without putting on a costume, it is mainly just rhetoric, I call it Mediscare, Mediscare. I am sure lots of seniors, I know they have in my district, because I have gone across the 17 counties doing well over 60 town hall meetings now with senior citizens, talking to the seniors about this new program, this good program, this good first step. But they have already been scared. They have been scared by so much of this rhetoric, as an example, that says you are going to lose your Medicare as you know it. They, the Republican majority, the President of the United States, this administration, they are going to take away Medicare as you know it. That is one Mediscare tactic. Another: this bill is nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry; that is all it is. The pharmaceutical industry contributes all of this money to Republican Members of the Congress to buy this bill. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry, they drew up the bill. It is nothing but a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. I am going to refute some of these Mediscare tactics, and on that one I would like to right at the outset say, if that were true, when Medicare was first signed into law by a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, in 1965, and we had part A and part B, part A, the hospital part; part B, the doctor part. I never heard anybody say, and I am sure my colleagues never heard anybody saying that part A was nothing but a giveaway to the hospitals, or that part B was nothing but a giveaway to the doctors, because they happen to be the ones who respectively provided that care under part A and part B. No, they did not call it a giveaway. In fact, the hospitals and the doctors, over the 38 years of the program, and it is a good program, I think it has served us well. I do not think we could get too many of my physician colleagues, and oh, by the way, I think my colleagues know that I am one of seven physician members of this body; not many of my colleagues are saying today Medicare part A or medicare part B, certainly my rural hospitals in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, they are not saying Congressman, part A medicare has been nothing but a money tree for us, it has been wonderful, part A has been great for rural hospitals. No. They are struggling. Every day they are struggling. So we hear all of these things and these scare tactics and telling the seniors, even now that we have this interim prescription drug discount program, because it takes a while to get the prescription drug benefit, the insurance part, and it is totally, totally optional, not required; but we will not have that ready until January of 2006. But this President and this Congress and this leadership, this Republican leadership, knew that our seniors needed relief right now. They really do. Some are trying to make these decisions about paying their utility bill or their mortgage payment; and all of a sudden, it is time to refill that prescription and they do not have the money to do it. And they are breaking pills and they are skipping pills. These seniors, those who are on fixed income, those low-income seniors who are in that bind really cannot wait until January 1 of 2006. They need relief right now. That is what the interim prescription drug discount program is all about. It is a Godsend for them. Yet, here again, Halloween is upon us, really a Presidential election is upon us, just 3 days after Halloween. That is what it is all about. But to scare seniors, especially those needy seniors who, by just signing up for that prescription drug Medicare-approved discount card get a $600 credit each of the 2 years; a $1,200 credit toward the purchase of those much and badly, desperately needed drugs. They are being scared into not signing up, not picking up that telephone and dialing 1-800 Medicare and spending 15 to 20 minutes at most on the phone and getting that card in their hand. These cards have been available since June 1 of this year. I am very pleased that 1.8 million currently have them of the low-income, needy seniors, and something like 4 million overall. But we need to do better, and the reason we are not doing better is simply because of this Halloween Mediscare mentality of scaring seniors into not participating. Well, enough of that. We will get back to that maybe a little later in the hour. But let us talk a little bit about the reason that we need to have a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Well, it is a 38-year-old program. Medicare as we know it is a 38- year-old program. It is a 20th century health care program with no coverage for prescription drugs, none whatsoever, except certain medications that are actually administered by a physician in a doctor's office intravenously or intramuscularly to treat maybe end stage renal disease and cancer, chemotherapy. Anything else, any time the general practitioner, the family practitioner, the general internist, writes those three or four prescriptions, none of that, that is all out of pocket. And many of our seniors do not have any coverage. They do not have an insurance program through the VA program or TRICARE or as retirees for let us say a State worker or Federal employee or maybe a generous benefit from a company they have worked for for 35, for 40 years. Many of them do not have that. They have absolutely nothing. So this program is way, way overdue. And so many other Congresses and other presidents, the Democratic majority have made promises to our seniors and talked about delivering, delivering on a promise and failed to do so. And all of the sudden this President has the courage and the wisdom and the insight and the compassion to get a tough bill through this Congress. And now, instead of getting credit for that, these Medicare tactics are trying to discredit him over that. Amazing. In fact, down right appalling. Another scare tactic is this, and I know we all have heard it. When we debated the bill there was a lot of discussion about this, and some of the seniors organizations were very concerned about, is it possible that when we start offering a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, are many of the conditions that currently have a health retirement benefit for their employees, for their retired employees, that does include prescription drugs, are they going to be encouraged because now this Medicare Prescription Drug Part B is an optional benefit to seniors to just drop these programs? So that is another one of the scare tactics. Yeah, do not vote for this bill because, if you do, the first thing that is going to happen is your company, that you worked for 30, 35 years, they are going to drop you like a hot potato, as the expression goes. Let me point out to my colleagues, and I want to call their attention to this first slide. What this slide shows is that, over the last 12 years, the number of large employers who have been offering health care for their retirees, the number that has actually begun to drop this coverage, even before we passed this bill, has been decreasing over these last 12 years. This first part of the slide shows people who are under 65 and are retired. In 1991, 88 percent of them were covered by health care that included a prescription drug benefit. In 2003, this coverage has dropped to 72 percent. Now, this is for the people who are under 65. What happens now when they become Medicare eligible at age 65? In 1991, the percentage that were covered by their former employer was 80 percent, less than those under 65 who are not eligible for Medicare yet. And the drop off again is substantial, from 1991 to 2003, down to 61 percent. The point of this first slide is basically to show that this is already happening, this is already happening. And it is not because of the fact that we now are offering a prescription drug benefit to these seniors who now, if they are dropped by these plans by their former employer, they have nothing. They have no coverage at all. And as part of this new Medicare modernization and prescription drug act, and I do not know exactly what the dollar amount of the estimated cost is, the Congressional Budget Office very clearly said to the Congress, it is going to cost $420 billion over 10 years. We have got another number later on that, was over $500 billion, but a significant amount of that money, something like $75 billion dollars is going to these companies, these large companies, large and small companies, to help them wrap around the Medicare prescription drug benefit so they will continue, they will continue to offer health insurance that includes prescription drugs and actually bend this curve, not make it worse, but maybe stop this normal attrition that is already occurring without the prescription drug benefit and the modernization to Medicare. This is already happening. So we are going to turn that curve around. And I sincerely believe that that will happen. Remember at the outset when I said about some of the Medicare rhetoric, and the first one I think we mentioned was they, the Republican majority, the President, indeed, they are about to take away Medicare as you know it. And the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), was quoted as saying, ``Well, we certainly hope so,'' and roundly criticized by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. What the chairman meant by that was quite simply, Medicare as we know it has been sorely lacking for all these years, no prescription drug benefit, part A and Part B, yes. But all of the sudden we are going to offer something that hopefully keeps seniors out of the hospital, they now have coverage for that, do they not, under Medicare part A, and out of the nursing home also under Medicare part A, but that coverage is not to infinity. What happens is, when our seniors go into the hospital, there is a significant co-pay, and they use up their days, and then everything is out-of-pocket. They have to go into a skilled nursing home for a very limited number of days per illness, and then, everything after that is out of their pocket. And in many instances, they literally go broke in a nursing home and have to go on Medicaid and lose a lot of pride and a lot of dignity in the process. But even more importantly, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), so concisely and clearly indicated, Medicare as we know it needs improvement. And Medicare as we know it, if we do not do something to improve it and we continue to let people get terribly sick with end-stage renal disease or significant coronary blockage, and they end up in the hospital needing bypass surgery or maybe an amputation, and then possibly spend the rest of their lives in a nursing home because their high blood pressure was not treated in a timely fashion and they suffered what we refer to medically as a cerebral vascular accident but what you know as a stroke, yes, they get treated all right in the hospital and in the nursing home until their money runs out. But is that the compassionate thing to do? That is Medicare as we know it. That is exactly what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) was talking about when he said, Medicare as we know it needs to go. We need to improve upon it. And that is what we are going to do, and that is what we are doing with this interim drug discount program. And starting in January 1 of 2006, the opportunity for our seniors, the option or choice, it is not required, of course, but hopefully, just as many who signed up back in 1965. It was President Truman himself, former President Truman who voluntarily signed up for Medicare Part B in 1965; and some 95 percent, maybe more than that, of our seniors who are on Medicare, are voluntarily on Part B because it is a good program. The taxpayers are paying 75 percent of that premium, even though it has gone up over the years, because the cost of health care has gone up. But that is formula driven. But we need to change Medicare as we know it. And that is what we are doing with this bill, this new law. And I thank God for that. And I think our seniors thank God for that, and they thank this Congress, the Members that voted for this bill, and they thank President Bush for having the courage to see this through and deliver on a promise. When I came to the Congress in 2003, almost 2 years ago, as only one of seven physician Members on the House side, we have Dr. Frist, the majority leader on the Senate side, a lot of people told me back home, they said, especially my physician constituency, my friends that I had practiced medicine with for almost 30 years, You are going to go up to Washington and you are going to solve all of our problems, and you are going to explain to the 434 other Members, the non-physician Members how to get it done, what our needs are, what the problems are, what the problems with health care in general but for Medicare and our seniors specifically. We are counting on you. We are counting on you to make sure that everybody else understands this, and we solve the problems. And I would say to them today, I am working on it. I am trying hard. But what I found when I arrived here is lots of folks, some physicians, many not, who have been working on health care and working to deliver a more modern 21st century health care system for our seniors; the same thing that we Members of Congress enjoy, all of our Federal employees under the Federal health employees benefit program, State employees, people indeed under the TRICARE system, enjoy, 21st century medicine. And there have been many Members in this body who have been working tirelessly for quite a few years before this Member, this physician Member arrived. One of those is here with me tonight, and I am so proud to call her my friend and colleague. She is not a physician, but her husband is a physician. In fact, he is a retired OB-GYN just like myself. And as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am going to state that she has been invaluable to me and to all of her colleagues in sharing her knowledge, in making the most complex, arcane part of Medicare law understandable, understandable to me and to all the Members. So it is with a great deal of pleasure that I recognize her here this evening and let her take as much time as she wants to talk a little bit more about the specifics of this bill. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today in support of the marriage protection amendment, which is before the House today. Over the past several years, the traditional family has been under attack. The survival of the American family is of crucial importance because it serves as the backbone to our Nation as the primary protector and educator of our children. Studies overwhelmingly suggest that children have a greater chance at success in life when a mother and a father are both present in the home. It is true that the recognition of the family unit has been traditionally a State issue. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, we will have a direct voice this November 2. In Georgia, we will vote yea or nay on a constitutional amendment banning so-called same-sex marriages. However, with the recent onslaught against the traditional family in the courts, I believe it is now time for the Federal Government to act decisively as well. Mr. Speaker, 44 out of 50 United States have already enacted laws that identify marriage as a union of a man and a woman, mother and father. Yet activist judges who look to enforce their own personal views continue to strike down laws passed by State legislatures and approved by our constituents. In fact, over 60 percent of the American people agree we need a Federal constitutional amendment. The citizens of the United States, our constituents, want us to support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. They do not want a court to decide the definition of marriage. Therefore, if we do not pass a constitutional amendment on the Federal level, federally appointed judges will make their own definition without a single vote by the American people or their representatives. I believe this body has an important decision to make, a decision that is obviously a major concern to the majority of the American public. To illustrate this, as of this morning, over 2,600 constituents from Georgia's 11th Congressional District have written to me in favor of this amendment. They have voiced their concerns to me, and I believe they are right, and I strongly urge Congress to pass the marriage protection amendment. As far as the gentleman from the other side of the aisle who questioned what our grandchildren will think of their grandparents some day, my four grandchildren will say thank God their granddad stood up for their moms and dads for the passage of this constitutional amendment. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State, the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time, and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for introducing legislation to restore our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia. H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, would eliminate penalties for the legal possession of a firearm, and it would permit the storage of legal firearms in an individual's home or place of business. This debate is fundamental in its nature. Americans should have the right to defend themselves against a violent assault. They should have the right to protect their own lives. In 2002, the District of Columbia earned the rare distinction of being the murder capital of America for 14 out of 15 years, yet all handguns have been banned in the District since 1976. This simple fact shows that firearm bans do not work to decrease crime. D.C. laws should not make it a criminal offense to possess a firearm and self-defense in one's own home or business. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reported on December 14, 1994, that Rebecca Griffin heard her daughter screaming one night, only to find her bound and gagged by two potential kidnappers. With one carrying a knife, she was quick to end the attack after retrieving her 32-caliber revolver from the basement. Although her daughter was left cut and bleeding, by using a firearm to protect her family in her own home, she saved her daughter from abduction and, yes, possibly death. It is interesting to note that crime was on the decline in Washington, D.C., before the gun ban was imposed. Yet in only the first 15 years of the ban, from 1976 to 1991, the homicide rate increased by more than 200 percent while the rest of the United States had only a 12 percent increase. When Congress chose to delegate home rule in the 1970s, it specified that legislation by the District must be consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and I hope that the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, who previously spoke about the rights of D.C. citizens, are listening. However, the District of Columbia consistently violates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. It violates the right to self- defense. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pass the rule for the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act and to restore second amendment rights to the law-abiding citizens of our Nation's Capital.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend this House for having the courage to protect the sanctity of marriage. In today's society, we find ourselves constantly fending off attacks aimed at the foundation of our Nation. Whether it is those that would take ``in God we trust'' off of our currency or ``one Nation under God'' out of our Pledge, we must stand up for the basic tenets on which this Nation was founded. This week, Mr. Speaker, we continue our fight to defend one of the most basic institutions of our Nation: the traditional family. It is true that the recognition of the family unit has traditionally been a State issue; but with the recent onslaught against the traditional family in our Nation, I believe it is now time for the Federal Government to act decisively. As a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 106, I encourage my colleagues to stand up in defense of the traditional family and in defense of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in the 10 years of Republican majority in the House, we have always put families first. We recognize that protecting our Nation's families means in part creating access to better health care, providing affordable prescription drugs to seniors and ensuring the best doctors and care for our children. These are critical and necessary commitments. In 1994, when Republicans took the majority, many of our citizens were being left behind without access to rapidly developing medical technology. Last year, we passed the most sweeping modernization to Medicare legislation since its creation in 1965. For the first time, our seniors now have a prescription drug benefit. Americans know that their parents and grandparents will be taken care of and that they are in safe hands. We have provided better options to our Nation's low-income families by making doctors' appointments and necessary checkups available through community health centers; 15 million families nationwide now have a place to count on for health care through these centers. America's families will always receive the best existing health care. Republicans recognize the importance of family health care, and we will continue to recognize it as a top priority in the future.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, what the chairman was just saying is just so true. It came home to me in a big and tragic way in this past week. I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. The president of the student body just a couple of years ago at Georgia Tech, my alma mater, a young first lieutenant, Tyler Brown, was killed leading his troops in a firefight in Iraq. He was an outstanding young man. Everybody said that one day Tyler would surely become President. I do not know about that, but I know that his mom and dad and his older brother Brent are suffering deeply now, as much as a person could possibly suffer, over the tragic loss of their son and brother. As the chairman says, Mr. Speaker, you cannot support the troops out of one side of your mouth and criticize them out of the other. This is the one thing that this family, this Brown family, has to hold on to for the rest of their lives, to know that Tyler, their son, who had such great potential, who gave his life for this country, killed in action, was not killed in vain. I really appreciate the chairman, Mr. Speaker, bringing that out tonight, because you cannot be for the troops and against them. You cannot have it both ways. I just felt like I needed to make that statement. I appreciate the chairman giving me the additional time to do that.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, my chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, in recent days many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have come to the floor of the House to criticize the President's policies on Afghanistan and Iraq. The rhetoric of the minority side of the aisle is paltry at best, and tonight I would like to try to set the record straight. The two chief arguments of the Democratic Party that I believe are based on faulty logic are these: first, America has lost its focus on the war on terrorism in Afghanistan; and, second, President Bush has failed to build a true international coalition to fight this war. Let us point to the administration's Afghan focus. First and foremost, we in the Congress must make the distinction between less cable news coverage and less administrative attention to the situation in Afghanistan. Despite what many would have us believe, the success stories coming out of Afghanistan are not only remarkable, but they far outnumber the negative ones. Negative stories make the news, but the positive ones are there as well. And native Afghans are returning to their homeland in droves now that the country has been liberated from the oppression of the Taliban. Just this year 200,000 Afghans have returned home from Pakistan, bringing the total number to 2.2 million from Pakistan since 2002. Also, recently the 1 millionth Afghan refugee returned home from Iran. Many of these refugees are highly educated teachers, health care providers, and community leaders that were thrown out of the country by the Taliban. I do not believe that this extraordinary number of Afghan citizens would pick up and return home if they believed that Afghanistan was not a safer place. To the contrary, they are returning home because their country has been liberated from an oppressive regime and they are once again free. The Afghan economy continues to power ahead; and previously unheard-of opportunities are opening up, particularly, Mr. Speaker, for Afghan women. Let us talk about democratic development. Perhaps the most notable development in Afghanistan is the progress of democracy. The country's first post-war presidential election is scheduled for October of this year. Voter registration efforts have exceeded, far exceeded, expectations. Several months ago, officials predicted up to 5 million registered voters, but according to the Joint Election Commission, more than 9 million people, out of 10 million eligible voters, have registered to vote, and 41.6 percent of them are women. Furthermore, despite serious efforts to disrupt it, voter registration continues at a pace of up to 125,000 people per day. Afghan citizens are optimistic and excited by democracy, I think their country is headed in the right direction, and I commend our President for his efforts in this regard. President Bush's efforts to build a true international coalition, let us just talk about that for a little while. Few positive and accurate statements have been made regarding the 32-nation United States-British led coalition in Iraq or the 35-country security force in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this has reinforced the falsehood that America is isolated and hated on the world stage. Well, to the contrary, in fighting the War on Terror, the United States has assembled one of the greatest international coalitions this world has ever seen. The coalition in Iraq includes 21 nations from Europe and nine from Asia and Australia. Twelve of the 25 members of the European Union are represented. Sixteen of the 26 NATO member States are represented as well. Let us recall that the decision to go to war in Iraq was undertaken only after years, years, of negotiations with the UN Security Council and no less than 17 failed resolutions. There is broad political support internationally for United States aims and objectives in Iraq, as confirmed by the unanimously-passed UN Security Council Resolution 1546 which endorses the return of full sovereignty to Iraq and its interim government; sets out the role of the United Nations; and outlines the relationship between the new Iraqi government and the multinational force in the country after the end of the occupation by the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, on May 28. Furthermore, the United States has spearheaded a huge international effort to reconstruct Iraq and to negotiate forgiveness of the country's massive debts. I am concerned that a failure to properly account for the reality of international coalition efforts strengthens all of this anti-American sentiment abroad and diminishes the sacrifices and the contributions that our allies are making in the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, with the aid of the international coalition, millions of people have been liberated, 170 newspapers are now being published, new modern power plants are being built, 64,000 secondary school teachers have been trained and some 5,000 school principals and administrators. More than 8.7 million textbooks have been printed and distributed throughout Iraq. Coalition forces have rehabilitated almost 2,500 schools, 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open today. All 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 health clinics are open for business. Healthcare spending in Iraq has actually increased 30 times over its pre-war levels and children, listen to this, are receiving crucial vaccinations for the first time ever. Over 5 million children have been immunized for measles, mumps and rubella. Mr. Speaker, this is just a handful of the good that this coalition has brought to the people of Iraq. It is a coalition that was forged and preserved by our President, and I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to diminish the achievements of this coalition. Furthermore, I hope that the rhetoric of the minority party would not dishearten brave citizens of the 32 other nations that are giving of their talent, their time, and, yes, their treasure to do what they think is right in defending the freedom and interests of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I yield back to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and I thank him for giving me a little time to talk about all the good that is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to continue to bring that to the attention of our colleagues and the American people.