Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 172 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Town of Canton, Connecticut, on the occasion of its 200th Anniversary on May 20, 2006. While the Town of Canton officially celebrates its bicentennial on this date, the community that became Canton actually traces its roots as far back as 1737, when it was known as the First Ecclesiastical District of West Simsbury. The community officially separated from the Town of Simsbury on May 20, 1806, taking the name Canton, which means ``division of territory.'' Many generations of hard-working people have lived and worked in Canton throughout its 200 years. When David and Samuel Collins and their cousin William Wells sought natural waterways for factory power, they settled in Canton in 1826. Through their industriousness, they developed the world's first factory devoted to making axes, which eventually became the world's largest manufacturer of edged tools. The Collins Company also gained recognition as one of the world's most innovative manufacturers, after Samuel Collins developed the utilization of anthracite coal for factory operation--a significant step in igniting our country's Industrial Revolution. Of course, the Collins Company would not have realized this impressive and historical success were it not for the hard-working citizens who helped establish a very solid industrial base in the region. Many generations of Canton residents have stood out and have had important roles in shaping the town's history for the past 200 years. One of Canton's most famous citizens, William Edgar Symonds, earned the Medal of Honor for bravery while fighting with the Union Army in the Civil War. After the war, Mr. Symonds became a well-known patent attorney and political figure, rising to the position of Speaker of the House in the State Legislature. Later, as a U.S. Congressman, he helped pass legislation to protect patents on an international level, and was awarded the French Legion of Merit. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Canton, Connecticut, upon achieving its 200th Anniversary. I applaud the generations of Canton citizens who have helped this town grow since its founding in 1806, and I commend today's Canton residents for everything they do to make sure that this great town will enjoy a prosperous and productive future.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time to the members of the Ways and Means Committee Health Subcommittee. Well, there you have it, folks. There it is. Almost 90 percent of seniors have drug coverage today, more than ever before in America's history, and thanks to Medicare part D and its 10,000 grass-roots partners who have reached into communities across our country to provide personal, face- to-face advice to millions of seniors on signing up. In Connecticut, 75 percent of our Hispanic seniors are signed up; 69 percent of our African American seniors are signed up; 65 percent of our Asian American seniors have signed up because, for the very first time ever, Medicare has partnered with people right in their local communities to give them the help, support, advice, to make their own choice about Medicare, which Medicare part D plan helped them do. And you know what? Poll after poll shows how seniors are happy with the benefits provided by these plans. AARP, the largest organization representing seniors, found that eight out of ten seniors enrolled in the program said that it met or exceeded their expectations. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that three out of four seniors enrolled in a Medicare D plan are satisfied with their plan and are not having trouble getting the drugs they need. Seniors are signing up and they are liking it. Why? Because it saves them money. It saves them lots of money. It saves some couples $4-, $5,000 a year. Why are they signing up? Because it protects them from dangerous, adverse drug interactions. They have never had that protection before. Why are they signing up? Because it protects them from catastrophic drug costs. They have never had that protection before. They have never had that financial security before. When Gail Glazewski from Cheshire, Connecticut, found out that her part D drug program was going to save her $2,000 a year, she just let out a whoop of glee and said, I am the happiest senior citizen in town. Gail is one of the millions of seniors that the New York Times reported last month as Medicare's satisfied customers. The newspaper said, They are not vocal, they are not organized, but they are saving hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars for our seniors. The only sad note has been the dedication of some to scaring our seniors. It is not uncommon to have a senior tell me how complicated the program is, how unfair it is, how wrong that I worked so hard to pass it, only to come back and tell me later, after they went to the choices counselor, as I proposed, how easy it turned out to be, and how much money they were saving. You know, nothing has moved me more than some of the seniors who have come to me after these counseling sessions with the buses that CMS has provided, with the State counselors, with the local people, and as one said, she said, you know, I was sad when I came here. This is the difference between my staying in my home and having to give up my home. So this is a big step forward for Medicare. It is a dramatic change. It is really exciting to see how people have come forward and signed up. We have a few more days, and the message is sign up, sign up, sign up. It not only saves you money, it gives you health protection and financial protection. You have never before had access to through Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a resolution urging seniors to sign up for a Medicare drug benefit plan before the deadline. Why? Because it will save you money on prescription drugs, protect you from harmful drug interactions, and cover 95 percent of your costs if your personal expenditures exceed $3,600. Medicare Part D will fundamentally, improve our seniors' health and financial security. The Medicare momentum we're witnessing is undeniable. Of the 42 million seniors in Medicare, 9 million have drug coverage, either through TRICARE, FEHBP, or as active employees, and do not need to enroll. The 33 million remaining, includes 28 million seniors that are now benefiting from the program. Of the 5 million remaining another 1 million are expected to sign up before the deadline and another 2 million seniors, that qualify for extra help, can continue to sign-up throughout the year. So at this point it looks like 40 million of the 42 million seniors in Medicare will enjoy prescription drug coverage or can sign up for it at any point during the year. A truly remarkable fact and it is due to the spectacular commitment of over 10,000 grassroots organizations that in partnership with CMS, have been conducting face-to-face enrollment of seniors. CMS and its 10,000 grassroots partners are conducting more than 1,800 enrollment events across the country each week, right up until the May 15th enrollment deadline. Additionally, CMS has increased resources to keep the wait times down and beneficiary support up at 1-800-MEDICARE and the Medicare.gov website. And these seniors and the disabled are filling more than 93 million prescriptions a month--an average of 3 million a day. As important, once enrolled in the program seniors are happy with the benefits provided. AARP, the largest organization representing seniors found that 8 out of 10 seniors enrolled in the program said that it met or exceeded their expectations. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds that 3 out of 4 seniors enrolled in a Medicare drug plan are satisfied with their plan and are not having trouble getting the drugs they need. Seniors are giving this new benefit their stamp of approval! But this is a major change in the Medicare program and it is not surprising that there have been implementation pitfalls along the way as we heard from GAO and other witnesses at our subcommittee hearing. Because CMS has aggressively taken ownership of these implementation problems, most of the problems were addressed within the first two months of the year. For some, the solutions have been agreed to and implementation is now proceeding as states submit their bills. Once the program is free to focus on the delivery of benefits to our seniors, we will, I'm sure, identify refinements that need to be made with either CMS' contracting standards or the law. But at this point, the enrollment numbers and survey after survey attest to the tremendous value of the Medicare drug benefit. The real story is that seniors across the country are saving money! For example, seniors like Gail Glazewski from Cheshire, CT are saving $2,000 a year who described herself with glee as ``the happiest senior citizen in town when I realized how much I was going to save!'' That is the real story of the Medicare prescription drug benefit and it is being repeated all around the country. Gail is one of the millions of seniors that the New York Times reported about last month as ``Medicare's Satisfied Customers.'' The newspaper said ``they are not vocal, they are not organized,'' but they are saving hundreds and in some cases thousands. The only sad note has been the dedication of some to scaring our seniors. It's not uncommon to have a senior tell me how complicated the program is, how unfair, how wrong I was to work so hard to pass it-- only to admit that they haven't tried to sign-up--and only to say after we help them--that it wasn't hard and look at the money I'm saving. When I travel around my district, I meet senior after senior who has signed up and is saving money and each day help seniors sign up and save. As we approach the end of the enrollment period, I urge every senior to sign up, save money, and protect yourself against catastrophic costs and harmful drug interactions. There are still seniors that have questions about the program and haven't enrolled. It's natural to have questions with a change this big. But every senior--especially those without drug coverage--should assess the drugs they take and talk to a counselor at 1-800-MEDICARE, at one of the many hotlines states are operating, or at their local senior center or agency on aging. They should not let questions about this program dissuade them from saving money like so many of their friends, family and neighbors are. This brings me to my final point. Some are urging delay of the deadline for signing up. Unfortunately, too often these are the same Members who use scare tactics to discourage beneficiaries from signing up early. All programs have deadlines. Shame on them! We must enforce the deadline so the plans can deliver! We need to let the system work so any needed refinements needed be addressed promptly. For years Members of Congress have talked about adding prescription drug benefits to Medicare. But today--right now--a Medicare prescription drug benefit is a reality. Thirty million seniors are benefiting from it, including 8 million who had no drug coverage before. That is a great, historic achievement for both the health and financial well-being of our seniors. I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I would be happy to respond. Actuaries estimate things differently. The CMS actuaries estimate that 1.1 million won't sign up if we move the deadline. In other words, they will lose the pressure they have today to sign up by May 15 and the total will be lower, not higher.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 1\1/ 2\ minutes. I do find it really quite remarkable that my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, who spent literally months scaring seniors away from signing up for this benefit, claiming it was too complex, claiming it was this and that. I can't tell you how many seniors I had call my office saying oh, I cannot do this, it is too hard. Then when we show them they say, oh, it is not so hard. Fifty-four percent of the people who signed up signed up themselves. The tools provided made it not so hard. Yet colleague after colleague, and I read it in the paper and I saw it, spent their entire time and effort scaring seniors, shameful behavior for elected officials. Of course, now we come to the end and they want to extend the deadline. They should have been out there the last few weeks saying sign up, sign up. Let me tell you, I can't tell you how many we helped. I would just like to remind you that your own bill had an earlier deadline than the bill we are dealing with. So let us pull together, get everybody to sign up. Then let us let the plans deliver the goods. You who said this was complicated ought to be the first one who wants these plans to have some time to deliver the services to the seniors who signed up, the 90 percent, the seniors who signed up, so we can make sure that the plans will run according to Hoyle, according to their promises, that they will deliver, and that we can know whether there is any fine-tuning that needs to be done before the next round of sign-ups. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I have 30 seconds remaining. I will be the last speaker before you.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just correct a few facts on this record, because for those watching this debate I want them to understand two things. First of all, all low income seniors can continue to enroll without penalty. That is just a fact. No low income senior has an enrollment deadline. Secondly, this GAO report that was referred to earlier, it actually says that CMS's help line accurately and completely answered callers' questions two-thirds of the time. They go on to say that CMS provided accurate and complete responses to calls about beneficiaries' eligibility for help 90 percent of the time. So we have worked hard. We have done well. Seniors are signing up and saving money.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for recognizing me on this bill to designate the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area. This area encompasses 29 towns in the hilly terrain of western Massachusetts and northwestern Connecticut which is a singular and important geographic and cultural area. And my colleague, Mr. Olver, while he may be here before we finish debate, has worked closely with me on this as it links our two districts together. Its residents, over hundreds of years, have made significant national contributions to American literature, art, music and architecture, founded the iron industry in America, and host unique minerals and environmental treasures. This area has been awaiting designation for several years, and I am thrilled to have it on the floor today. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and the Resources Committee for recognizing that through this locally led initiative, the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts will be able to make real progress in protecting the river and the river valley, its heritage and also collaborating regionally to develop the economy in harmony with its history, environmental resources, and unique cultural heritage. The Heritage designation enjoys overwhelming support throughout the region from individuals. Historic and civic organizations, local businesses, and local and State elected officials all have expressed strong support for the establishment of the National Heritage Area, and are enthusiastic about the potential that designation creates for the small towns of the area to work together to celebrate and preserve our heritage. It has inspired the development of a local organization that has already begun hosting hiking events, historic visits and numerous educational programs, laying a new foundation for regional action for both preservation and economic development. Congress established criteria in 2000 clarifying that designation requires a cultural, natural and historical heritage of national significance and must have broad public support and a qualified organization to manage the area. The National Park Service agreed that the Upper Housatonic Valley meets the Department's 10 criteria for designation and even cite it as a national model of how to become a National Heritage Area. The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area will extend from Lanesboro, Massachusetts, 60 miles south to Kent, Connecticut. This region of New England is home to the Nation's first industrial iron sites from 1730 to the 1920s. The first blast furnace was built here in 1762 by Ethan Allen and supplied the iron for the cannons that helped George Washington's Army defeat the British in Boston and to make other weapons for the soldiers of the Revolutionary War. While many of the furnaces, mine sites and charcoal pits have been lost to development and time, those that remain are in need of refurbishment. The Beckley Furnace in Canaan, Connecticut, was designated as an official project by the Millennium Committee to Save America's Treasures and now has been well restored. The valley's history as a cultural retreat from Boston and New York provides both past and current riches for the country. Since the 1930s, visitors from all over have come to hear music at Tanglewood, Massachusetts and Music Mountain in Falls Village, Connecticut; to see paintings at the Norman Rockwell Museum and at the Eric Sloane Museum and to watch serious theater at Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and Norfolk, Connecticut. Today's local authors have drawn on a long tradition going back to the 19th century when Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Edith Wharton lived and wrote in these hills. The Housatonic Valley is also rich with environmental and recreational treasures. On the Housatonic River just below Falls Village, Connecticut, is one of the prize fly fishing centers in the northeast and is enjoyed by fishermen not only from Connecticut and Massachusetts, but the entire eastern seaboard. Olympic rowers have trained on this river as our children have learned to swim, boat, fish and value its ecosystem. The Appalachian Trail winds through this area, as do the trails on Canaan Mountain and in the Great Mountain Forest. The Upper Housatonic Valley with its remoteness from, but ties to, large cities occupies a special niche in our national culture, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in an era when Americans' dependence on federal entitlements is increasing, when the number of Americans filing for personal bankruptcy rose an astounding 30 percent in the past year, and when our national savings rate is at its lowest point since the Great Depression, it is imperative that our Nation's youth understand the importance of long-term financial planning, particularly personal savings and investment. We need young Americans to develop basic financial skills and knowledge to help them prepare for their future. They need to learn and understand basic principles such as compound interest, market capitalization, and how to avoid credit card debt. Learning simple concepts such as these during childhood cultivates lifelong habits of responsible financial management. In particular, we must emphasize the value of investing early. We must stress the significance of tax-advantaged savings opportunities such as Roth IRA's, Health Savings Accounts, and 401(k) contribution plans offered by employers--especially when a match is offered--as well as numerous other vehicles for building substantial nest eggs for retirement. Improving the financial literacy of our youth will equip the American workforce of tomorrow with the tools to grow our national economy and to achieve personal financial success and security in retirement. I urge my colleagues to join me in offering House Resolution 737 their full support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 79 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, before I make the comments I rose to make, I do want to comment for those watching this debate, that when you hear the words ``tax cut,'' the great majority of that money, outside of the new tax provisions to encourage rebuilding in New Orleans and the Mississippi coast and those areas so hard hit by Katrina and other storms, pretty much the rest of all of those, quote, ``tax cuts'' are simply tax extensions. In other words, we avoid increasing taxes. If we did nothing, we would increase taxes. We do not want to increase taxes, because the current tax policy has created a remarkable rate of growth in our economy. And when your economy is growing, not only do your revenues come in well if you are the government, but jobs are created if you are the people, and current jobs are maintained. So what are now loosely referred to as tax cuts, they appear in our vocabulary and our work as cuts, are not cuts; they are just maintaining current tax policy and avoiding tax increases that would harm our economy, cost jobs, cost taxpayers money they desperately need, as we go into a season of high heating oil costs and so on. But I want to mention something else about this motion, which I appreciate is presented as part of the process here. It doesn't have the force of law. It gives people something they might like to vote about to tell the negotiators how to negotiate, but you know, there are always big rocks when the sea looks calm. So I just want to tell you about a couple of rocks underneath the sea of the verbiage of this motion to instruct. It is certainly not a motion I would want to vote for. It wants us to recede to the Senate's position on physician payments. At first blush, that might look like a good idea, because they solve the first year problem by giving a very small increase to physicians. But in the second, not only do they let the 4.4 percent go into effect, but they add a 2 percent additional cut for physicians, for a 6.4 percent cut for physicians. That creates some pool that we are supposed to then pay physicians for performance. But we do not know what measurements are going to be used to determine whether a physician meets the performance standards or not. We do not know whether those measures will be such that a physician who provides health care in an area of the city or of the country where people simply do not come to the doctor until the last minute is going to be eligible for those payments like other physicians who might select patients who were healthier to take care of. We do not know whether those benefits, those pay-for-performance benefits, will go equally to physicians who run small practices and cannot afford electronic health records as opposed to those who go to big practices. So I certainly do not want to be instructing our conferees to yield to the Senate's position. Same on stabilization fund. The stabilization fund is explicitly, and we may not need it, but we do not know yet; it is explicitly to overcome one of the two big problems of being a rural physician in America, and that is intellectual isolation and being forced to abandon a patient who needs specialty care. In the time I have allotted, I cannot enlarge on that, but believe you me, if you care about quality care in rural areas, you do not want to instruct our conferees prematurely to eliminate the stabilization fund.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do. I think we are facing the possibility of physicians fleeing the Medicare program and creating a real access problem for seniors to physicians of their choice. But acceding to the Senate position is not going to fix it; it is going to exacerbate it. We need a better fix than the Senate offers. We need one without the threat of a 6 percent cut in the year after that which is absolutely unconscionable. So the negotiations are about finding better solutions. And that is one area in which we need a better solution, but if you cannot negotiate, if you do not have the latitude, you cannot get to the right answer. And this resolution tells you what the right answer is, when it is not the right answer and abandons the opportunity to negotiate in a number of areas.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, but we need to do something better than the Senate position, and we certainly need to avoid the additional 2 percent cut that starts every year thereafter.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. This is a negotiation. And what you are doing is prejudging the negotiation. That is what a motion to instruct does. This motion to instruct is across so many categories that it will do damage to our ability to get the right answer in all of the policy areas that we have responsibility for.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, would you work for an employer who told you he was going to cut your pay next year 4\1/2\ percent? Would you work for an employer who told you he was going to cut your pay every year for the next 6 years 4\1/2\ percent? Would you work for an employer who told you he was going to cut your pay every year for the next 6 years 4\1/2\ percent and your costs were going up 21 percent? Of course you would not. Our seniors are already finding it hard to find a doctor who will take a new Medicare patient. What a hollow promise Medicare is if you cannot choose your own doctor. Only you, Mr. President, can require bureaucratic minds to take the actions necessary, fair and appropriate to break through the barriers to a destructive, unworkable, and outdated law. Only you, Mr. President, can give the order for administrative actions to allow budget-neutral repeal of the old SGR law and adoption of a modern pay-for-performance bill so you can fulfill the progressive vision that you have had that we all share of a Medicare program that can control costs by improving the quality of health care delivered to our seniors. I call on you to act, Mr. President.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tax Relief Extension Act. Let me make absolutely clear what this bill does. The bill will prevent automatic tax increases on millions of Americans and their families. Unless Congress acts, individuals will pay higher taxes on their savings; businesses will lose valuable incentives to provide research in the United States; small businesses will lose the ability to expense new equipment, essential to the support of new employees. These are all benefits taxpayers have today, and our bill simply preserves them. The bill does not increase taxes. The bill does not reduce taxes. The bill merely preserves the current tax policy that has driven 4.3 percent growth and is creating millions of new jobs. According to the IRS in my home State of Connecticut, there are 550,000 taxpayers who receive dividend income; 153,000 of those have incomes below $30,000 a year. Right now they pay 5 percent taxes on dividend incomes. In 2008 low-income taxpayers will pay zero taxes on dividend income. If we fail to act, however, they will pay taxes as high as 25 percent. A widow living on $30,000 a year could see her tax bill increase by $1,200 a year. That would be wrong. This bill needs to be passed. It deserves to be passed. It also needs to be passed and deserves to be passed because it extends and enhances the R&D tax credit. At a time when other nations are providing or have provided permanent and richer incentives for research, we need to recognize the job-producing benefits of this tax credit. Mr. Speaker, we remain a world leader in patents and discoveries, but other nations are closing in. Advances in technology and innovation are what drive growth and ultimately create higher standards of living for all of us. We need to ask ourselves, do we want the next major scientific breakthrough to happen in Germany or China? Do we want other countries to be the leaders in the patents for the next generation of technology? Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention incentives for small business expensing. Small business is the engine of our economy. Our bill allows small businesses to immediately expense up to $100,000 of equipment. When we first adopted this provision, we saw investment in equipment skyrocket, go right straight up. Lowering the cost of capital encourages small businesses to invest in machines, trucks, and other equipment and hire new people. With 25 million small businesses accounting for two of three new jobs created, expensing supports these small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Connecticut seniors are signing up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, and many are saving hundreds and thousands of dollars. The CHOICES bus visited the senior citizens center in Plainville, Connecticut, and Thomas and Margaret Bernatchy spoke with a trained counselor. Mrs. Bernatchy takes many drugs, and it costs the couple $7,000 a year. After discussing their needs with the trained counselor, Mr. Bernatchy signed himself and his wife up, and they will save $5,000 a year. Mrs. Anita Willequer who also lives in Plainville was attending exercise classes at the senior center and decided to pop in on the Medicare CHOICES counseling session. She spends only $55 a month on drugs, but she will save $500 a year. ``This is a tremendous savings,'' she said. ``I was glad I asked about it. I hope it helps a lot of people.'' With each passing day, more and more seniors are talking with Medicare-trained advisors, getting their questions answered, signing up for savings. Help your seniors sign up for savings.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Monagan, who represented the fifth district of Connecticut from 1959 to 1973. Mr. Monagan passed away on October 23rd at the age of 93. John was born and raised in Waterbury, the largest city in the fifth district. He went on to Dartmouth college where he was an honors student in French literature. Upon graduation he attended Harvard Law school and in 1937 he received a law degree. During his 7 terms in Congress, he chaired the House Government Operations subcommittee that helped uncover irregularities in the Federal Housing Administration's financing of the Housing Renewal program. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee he led mission study trips to Soviet satellite countries and worked to improve trade relations with Latin American countries. John Monagan had a passion for public service that started before and continued after his years in the House. In Waterbury he immersed himself in public service, as an alderman, a finance commissioner and eventually as Mayor. As president of the U.S. Association of former members of Congress, he was known to give lectures on the importance of public service. His dedication to serving others is inspirational quality that many of us wish to pass onto the next generation. Mr. Speaker, we thank and pay our respects to John Monagan for his years of service to Connecticut and the Nation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, 42 million seniors can now sign up for the new voluntary Medicare drug benefit. Yesterday I was with a senior in my district, Shirley Rabinowitz, who takes 17 different prescription drugs. Let me say that again: 17 different prescription drugs. She takes drugs for diabetes. She takes drugs for her heart condition. She lives with a number of chronic illnesses, and so she takes 17 different prescriptions. But like so many seniors, she has no retiree coverage, no Medicaid coverage, no State plan assistance, in fact, no prescription drug coverage at all. And her out of pocket expenses are huge. So she wondered if the new Medicare plan would help her, and she went to an adviser with the Triple Area Agency on Aging and she learned in 30 short minutes that she can save $4,000 a year. Let me say that again: $4,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, this new drug program is a huge benefit to our seniors. Do not discourage them from getting the advice they need that is readily available to save them lots of money.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great friend and a gentleman who gave the gift of music freely, enthusiastically, and successfully throughout his life: my friend Lyle Russell Cedric ``Skitch'' Henderson. Skitch passed away on November 1 at his home in New Milford at 87. Skitch was born in England, and moved to the United States in the 1930's. In the early years, he eked out a living as pianist, playing vaudeville and movie music in Minnesota and Montana road houses. His big break came in 1937 when he filled in for an ailing accompanist for an MGM promotional tour featuring Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney. When the tour wrapped up in Chicago, he used the original pianist's ticket and went to Hollywood. There he met Bob Hope and played piano for Bob on the Pepsodent Show. He became friends with Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby and lent them his musical expertise. He continued on to win a Grammy award as a conductor. His many remarkable accomplishments reflect his diverse talents and character. During World War II, Skitch like many others put his life on hold for the greater cause. He flew both the Royal Air Force and, after becoming an American citizen, the United States Army Air Corps. This fostered Skitch's love for airplanes and flying, which became a lifelong passion. Skitch may be best known from his days as the bandleader for Steve Allen's ``Tonight Show,'' which brought Skitch into the nation's living rooms every night. Skitch not only served as bandleader for Allen, but for Jack Paar and Johnny Carson as well, reflecting his rich personality and breathe of talents. Not resting on his laurels, Skitch founded the New York Pops in 1983. He wanted to share his passion for music by bringing the more accessible symphonic pops fare to a broader audience. He led free New York Pops concerts in the city's parks each summer, so that people of all backgrounds could experience the majesty of hearing a world-class orchestra perform live. The New York Pops is now the largest independent symphonic pops orchestra in the United States. Beyond his career as a performer, Skitch helped thousands of New York City's school children gain new possibilities in life through music. He personally visited classrooms throughout the city to encourage children in a love of music and learning. Recently, he was appointed to be a distinguished Professor of Music at Western Connecticut State University and only a few weeks ago, with that twinkle in his eye, excitedly shared with me his vision of this great opportunity to develop the talents of local students and mold them into a first rate orchestra. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Skitch's wife Ruth. The couple married on February 7, 1958 and since then, they have not only been partners in marriage, but Ruth has been a partner in Skitch's many endeavors and is currently President of the New York Pops. Skitch Henderson brought music, beauty, and hope to millions. It is my privilege to rise to honor him for enriching the lives of people of all ages over many decades throughout America. Few leave such a magnificent legacy. A life well lived, my friend!

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was an early and fervent supporter of providing health benefits to families on welfare as they made the difficult transition to work, often to entry-level jobs not providing basic care for their children. So I appreciate the need for this bill for welfare recipients and for premium subsidies for our elderly and disabled citizens on very low incomes, but I do strongly object to the way these benefits are paid for in this bill. I regret that offsets I suggested were not adopted instead of this flat ban on ED drugs. Getting Congress involved in medical treatment decisions by limiting the availability of any category of prescription drugs sets a terrible precedent. Congress has repeatedly recognized that we should not be in the business of developing or defining formularies. Congress tasked the United States Pharmacopoeia with developing the categories and classes of drugs to be covered by the new prescription drug plans, and we specifically tasked the P&T committees in every Medicare drug plan offered to our seniors and disabled citizens with the responsibility of assuring that the formularies were medically correct and not politically correct. Furthermore, Medicare and Medicaid prescription drug plans have a number of tools at their disposal to ensure that ED drugs are not abused and could be covered only when prescribed for medically appropriate care. Further, since they are not sold over the counter and must be prescribed by a physician, control is not difficult. Medicare covers many benefits in some situations and not others, and ED drugs would only be another such benefit. As for sex offenders, cross-checking with publicly available lists of these offenders is not difficult and could prohibit ED drugs from going to sex offenders at taxpayers' expense while preserving access to these drugs when medically necessary for all disabled and senior men who are not sex offenders. Mr. Speaker, ED drugs are covered for Federal employees and Members of Congress. They are covered by the VA, and they are very useful in treating post-traumatic stress disorder. Why would we treat our seniors and people with disabilities worse than we treat all Federal employees and veterans? If my colleagues oppose full access, surely Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries should at least have access to all medically necessary medications. Medicare covers breast reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy or accidental injury. Medicare understands ``the importance of post- surgical psychological adjustment'' as women rehabilitate after a damaging cancer treatment or devastating injury. Are men not entitled to such wholeness after prostate cancer treatment? ED drugs help men who have lost sexual function as a result of medical conditions like prostate cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, or spinal cord injuries. Men need these medications not to enhance their lifestyle but to return them to normal, just like women need reconstructive surgery to return as close as possible to normal. In fact, wholeness is so important that according to a University of Chicago study, 68 percent of men were willing to forego treatments that were more effective in eradicating prostate cancer in order to maintain sexual function. Why would we force men to choose between the most effective medical treatment and wholeness? I could not agree more that we should ban ED drugs for sex offenders; but a flat ban on ED drugs for all seniors, low-income Americans, people with disabilities who have ED-related diseases or conditions is just plain discriminatory and wrong. So, Mr. Speaker, while I respect the concerns of those who support a total ban on ED drugs, I hate to see Congress go down this path of political correctness. We must offer our seniors, our poor, and our people with disabilities medically correct health care plans. The real answer to controlling the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is not micromanaging the programs, but driving forward the adoption of technology that will enable us to manage chronic illnesses proactively, reducing both the cost and suffering of hospitalizations and emergency department visits for our seniors and those disabled amongst us. That much said, and with the hope that we will allow doctors to determine treatment protocols, I acknowledge our public responsibility to extend access to Medicaid benefits for welfare-dependent families and for premium subsidies for our very lowest-income seniors and people with disabilities and to provide unemployment compensation funding these States so desperately need.