Providing for motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for most of us. A program that has served America well and has given peace of mind and good health care to seniors for over 40 years is under threat today; and actually, what we know is going to be before us is the death of Medicare.

One of the saddest parts about this bill today is that the Democrats have no role in it. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules, or this morning, actually, at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought that they could use to strengthen the bill, I apologize to you that there is no possibility in the world that you could do it. I hope that you did not hate yourself this morning for all the sleep that you lost for nothing.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process. The underlying bill will harm every single one of the 40 million Americans served by Medicare. At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page prescription drug legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half of the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration.

The other body, on the other hand, has spent over 2 weeks debating similar legislation. In stark contrast, we meet when nobody is around, up in the attic, as someone said today, and are permitted only 3 hours to discuss the largest overhaul of Medicare in its history. The people we represent would be disgusted if they understood how this issue is being handled.

We are not naming a post office here. We are considering, as I said, the most important change to Medicare since its creation. This decision will affect so many people. It is no simple undertaking, and it certainly deserves more debate than allowed by this rule.

To add even more confusion to the messy process, the Committee on Rules incorporated the so-called Health Savings Account bill into the rule for the Medicare overhaul legislation, so what we are doing here are two rules. So-called health savings accounts would create a new tax advantage, personal savings accounts, used to pay the out-of-pocket medical expenses. At first glance, perhaps it sounds innocuous. But when you look at the fine print, you see that it basically amounts to a $72 billion tax cut over the next 10 years while the Federal deficit continues to grow out of control. Even worse, it is a tax break with a destructive purpose: to threaten the traditional employer-based health care by actually encouraging companies to reduce their employees' health coverage.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most egregious problem with the legislation before us is it does nothing to address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. Oh, sure, they will tell us that we can import drugs from Canada, but the fact of the matter is that an amendment inserted into the Senate

bill by one of our Senators says that it cannot be done unless it is certified by the Secretary of HHS, who has stated already that he will not do it. Therefore, any debate today about being able to import drugs is absolutely a farce.

The consumer price index on which Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are based rose 98 percent, and the prescription drug costs that are crippling older Americans rose even higher. Seniors on Medicare are expected to spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next decade.

Today's Washington Post tells a story of Marie Urban of Cleveland. After her housing and Medicare payment, she has $459 a month for utilities, food, car insurance, taxes, and medication. She told The Post that some months she has 87 cents left over. This is wrong. She deserves better. A few years ago, as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at fractions of the prices charged in the American market. We had dozens more people interested than we could accommodate, but those who went saved anywhere from $100 to $650 on a 3-month supply of medication.

We are fortunate to live in an age when science provides the medications that cure illness and improve the quality of life and extend life. But the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot afford to buy it. The skyrocketing price of prescription drugs is the number one concern of American seniors and, indeed, most Americans. H.R. 1 does nothing to freeze or reduce the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs. In fact, again, the idea of going to Canada and handing it out with one hand and taking it away with the other is something that the drug companies will be very happy about, because they have fought in every possible venue to keep the reimportation of drugs.

At the same time, we hoped that we might do what the Veterans Administration has done with great success. By negotiating for the people that they represent with the drug companies, they have been able to save many of their veterans a great deal of money. Seniors fear this bill is a rush to privatize Medicare. We saw the flop of Medicare+Choice when many, many private insurance companies pulled out completely on senior citizens, leaving many of them in parts of the United States completely uncovered. Indeed, they have told us again, they do not want to cover a prescription drug program. One hundred percent of the people they cover will buy medicine. This is not what they consider a good business proposition.

Forty years ago, Congress created the Medicare program because private industry would not offer health insurance to older people. Companies saw the older people as a threat to their profits. We should have learned this lesson in the 1960s, because nothing has changed; and now we are today taking away what is probably the most important issue to senior citizens, will they be able to get health care.

Don Young, who is the President of the Health Insurance Association of Americans, quoted here often, has said, ``We caution Congress against relying on drug only insurance as a mechanism to deliver a benefit.''

Ira Loss, an analyst with Washington Analysis, said, ``The private sector that is supposed to be excited about this isn't. It creates a new benefit program built around insurance products that do not exist and are likely to never exist.''

Mr. Speaker, this proposal would replace Medicare's guaranteed coverage with what is essentially a voucher program to purchase private insurance, assuming that there is an insurer willing to sell it to you. But those who want the traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be forced to pay higher premiums. We have no idea, for example, what Part B would cost because it is not in the bill, which is intended to force the beneficiaries out of traditional Medicare and into private insurance.

Mr. Speaker, senior citizens do not want this legislation. We have all received call after call and letter after letter beseeching us to oppose this plan. They did not contact me because they need prescription drug coverage. They called and wrote me because they know this bill will not provide them with the help they desperately need.

According to the Consumers Union, the average Medicare user spends $2,318 for prescription medicine. Under this plan, the out-of-pocket drugs would rise to $2,954 for the average senior on Medicare. So this program is a placebo, not a cure, legislation crafted to provide political cover for the majority, not provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. Some may argue that this is something better than nothing, but it is only a start and, frankly, what we have in Medicare has not been that bad. But as many of our constituents say, a bad bill is worse than no bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that will raise premiums and reduce their choices and dismantle Medicare is a very bad bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez.)

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

(Ms. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, we have so little time to try to make any points here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

(Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we will pay attention to that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is pleased that the Democrats tried to make the gentleman's amendment in order last night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Today, the House votes on the biggest change in Medicare in its 40- year history, a change that will affect 40 million Americans; but the Republican leaders have rigged the rules to prevent the House from voting on serious alternatives offered by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Mr. Speaker, I will call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question in the hope that the House gets the chance to consider an additional alternative that the Republican leaders fear. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Dooley prescription drug alternative substitute. It makes all senior citizens enrolled in Medicare part B eligible for prescription drug assistance without increasing their premiums. Unlike the Republican bill, it has no sickness penalty or doughnut hole that seniors can fall through. Unlike the Republican bill, it does not encourage companies to drop seniors' existing drug plans.

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop the consideration of H.R. 1. It will simply allow the House to vote on the Dooley substitute. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 is a multi-part rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, and H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a modified closed rule, an appropriate rule for such a delicate, complex, and historic piece of legislation. The rule provides for 3 hours of general debate equally divided between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 1.

After general debate it will be in order to consider an amendment printed in the report accompanying this resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee and debatable for 1 hour. All points of order are waived against the amendment. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit to H.R. 1 with or without instructions.

Section 2 of this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003, either today, the legislative day of June 26, or tomorrow, June 27, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. All points of order against the consideration of H.R. 2596 are waived. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that upon passage of both pieces of legislation, the text of H.R. 2596 shall be added as a new matter at the end of H.R. 1. In simple terms, these two bills will become one. However, this bill does not preclude either bill from moving forward independently.

Finally, the remaining sections of this rule provide for some housekeeping provisions and provisions which will allow this body to move forward in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. For years now, seniors across this country have consistently voiced to Congress the same major concerns: the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Their concerns are not perceived; they are very, very real. Each year, a typical senior pays approximately $1,300 on prescription drugs, filling about 22 prescriptions on average. Today, the House will consider a plan to give all seniors a prescription drug benefit through Medicare.

In passing this bill, as I believe we will do before this day is over, we will renew America's promise to our seniors, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and revolutionize medicine in the 21st century.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their exemplary cooperation, their remarkable leadership, and inspiring vision they have provided on this complex, yet very much-needed legislation. I would like to take a moment just to give special thanks to them for working so closely with me on a couple of provisions that will greatly benefit cancer patients and hospitals across the country. Included in this legislation is immediate Medicare coverage for oral anticancer drugs through a demonstration project that will offer extraordinary support to seniors who are fighting cancer. It will enable them to afford the newest lifesaving medicines in the comfort of their own homes, rather than be hooked up to chemotherapies by infusions in a hospital or clinical setting.

I also commend the chairmen's interest and support in assisting hospitals who serve a disproportionate number of uninsured and indigent populations. Hospitals across this country, including many of our Nation's children's hospitals, will be better able to serve their patients with over $3 billion in additional funding. Finally, rural hospitals are finally getting their fair share: $27.2 billion.

Since 1965, Medicare has provided a guarantee of health care coverage for more than 40 million seniors. Today, our seniors are counting on the stability, longevity, and integrity of this program for their secure retirement. But if we do not act and pass this bill before us today, the future of Medicare will be certain: certain bankruptcy. Our inaction will have sealed the fate

for one of our Nation's most trusted programs.

So today, we will do two long-overdue things. First, we will modernize Medicare to save it for future seniors; and, second, we will provide the much-needed prescription drug coverage.

The prescription drug package the House is considering here today will provide the same universal guaranteed Medicare health services as those that currently exist. If you are 65 or older, you qualify for Medicare, and you qualify for this benefit. It is that simple. And we provide significant and immediate savings for seniors on their medicines. Specifically, this plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with a prescription drug discount card offering over 25 percent in savings, catastrophic protections, giving seniors 100 percent coverage for out- of-control drug costs beyond $3,500 year, and full assistance for our neediest citizens.

Equally important, this rule makes in order a provision establishing health savings accounts, a revolutionary tool, so that every American, not just seniors, can set aside savings now for their medical expenses, tax-free. With over 40 million uninsured, this is so important, and the plan provides for a catch-up provision so that seniors can take advantage and set aside more money more quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a remedy for what ails America's uninsured. Our plan is designed for those people who might be shut out of work-based coverage and offers all Americans, regardless of their income or age, access to health coverage with no bureaucracy or costly mandates.

Finally, this package includes chronic care management for all Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have one or more chronic illnesses. This provision will help better manage diseases, reduce health care costs, and enhance health and quality of life.

So here we are at a major crossroad. Seniors continue to tell us that adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is not some pie-in-the- sky policy that they would merely prefer become law. No. The majority of seniors are telling us that they cannot go another year without help, without any assistance, without any help with their drug costs, and without access to higher-quality health care.

Therefore, some questions need to be asked for those who will come forward in the next few hours and oppose this package. Ask them: How is this package not an improvement for our seniors who have no coverage and are struggling to pay for their medications? And ask them: How is the huge prescription drug savings that will result from this plan not useful to seniors? Ask them: How is bringing Medicare into the 21st century and saving it for future generations not wise for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren?

Now, some of my colleagues will no doubt put forth $1 trillion, pie- in-the-sky plans. These packages would bust any budget, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. As a matter of fact, the Democrat substitute actually is larger than the sum of two budgets. The Democrat Spratt budget had $528 billion for Medicare, and the Democrat Blue Dog budget had $400 billion dedicated to Medicare. That is a total of $920 billion. But the Democrat substitute that they are offering today is over $1 trillion, more than the combination of those two Democrat budgets. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of prescription drug coverage under Medicare is exactly what age discrimination looks like in 2003. Seniors are the last group of people who are forced to pay retail costs for their medications and, Mr. Speaker, that should be enough of a violation of civil rights to get even the ACLU involved.

I said just a moment ago that today is a historic day, and it is. Today we apply a little common sense by recognizing that health care is simply not what it was 30 years ago, and that Medicare is not what it was 30 years ago. It must change to keep up. Today, we will take the first steps in creating the next generation of quality health care, a new era where prescription drugs make regular doctor visits less frequent, where cutting-edge treatments make hospital stays nearly obsolete in the future, and where lifesaving medications reduce formerly deadly diseases to mere manageable symptoms within longer and healthier lives.

Today I urge my colleagues to be bold, to be courageous, to show leadership, and to take America's health care system into a new frontier, a place where it has needed to go for far too long now. Time is precious and so are our seniors. I urge this Congress to pass the underlying rule and approve H.R. 1, the Medicare Improvement and Prescription Drug Act of 2003.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for some substantive remarks. Dr. Fletcher is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and also a member of the medical profession, and we look forward to what he has to add to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my distinguished colleague.

(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who led us through our hearing on this last night to the historic conclusion today on the floor.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who we both share an abiding concern about cancer patients and their treatment, I would just like to set the record straight in that the bill on the floor today increases oncology practice expenses by $190 million. That is 83 percent over their current payment, and it is 50 percent higher than any other specialty. It also includes an average sales price plus 12 percent for 2 years. Now, that is $240 to $250 million on top of a $190 million increase in practice expenses.

In addition to that, we have provided for oral cancer therapies, the new, upcoming way to treat cancer, so that chemotherapies are not the only treatment that seniors can get. They can stay home and take a pill in their own surroundings rather than go be hooked up to some infusion device.

These are wonderful steps forward for the cancer community.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I disagree with the gentlewoman's analysis of how it works. There is a provision that will allow physicians to stockpile, if they prefer.

But on to another issue, Mr. Speaker. There were statements made earlier that there were no cost savings in this bill, by a former speaker. There are cost savings. There is group purchasing and insurance benefits, a 25 to 30 percent savings. There is a discount card, 15 to 20 percent savings. There is a Medicare best price, $18 billion in savings. Average wholesale price reform, $15 billion in savings. There is Hatch-Waxman reforms and reimportation reforms, all generating savings. And that is how we are able to expand and generate better treatment for seniors through the upcoming years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), another physician in our conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, passing this plan is the right thing to do. It makes the kind of commonsense changes to the health care system in this country that the American public needs. Adding this Medicare benefit will renew our promise to our seniors. It will reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and it will revolutionize medicine for the 21st century. Seniors deserve this assistance now. They deserved it yesterday. They deserved it last week; and actually, they deserved it last year. It is time for this body to act. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and pass the needed reform today.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

This resolution is simple. It allows the Republican leadership to consider suspension bills on Wednesdays. Current rules allow this body to consider suspension bills on Mondays and Tuesdays. A special provision in the rules allows the majority to place items under the suspension of the rules on Wednesday as well. That special provision expires soon, and it is my understanding that the majority would like to extend it through the 108th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to strongly oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the resolution. I have serious concerns about not only the suspension process but about the way this House is being managed. Suspensions should be reserved for noncontroversial items that do not require lengthy debate by the full House. Controversial issues or substantive issues should not be brought to the House floor under the suspension process, a process that allows little debate and no amendments.

But, Madam Speaker, this House is becoming a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. The majority of this House already allows far too little debate on critical issues facing the American people. Later today, we will debate the most sweeping changes to Medicare since the program was created 38 years ago. Two days ago, I asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules when as a Member of the House I could examine this hugely important bill, and I was told emphatically that it would be available online yesterday morning. So I got up early yesterday morning, and I logged on at home; but there was no bill. I checked again during the day, but again no bill. Finally at 11:50 p.m. last night, we were given a copy of the bill and told the Committee on Rules would hold an emergency meeting an hour later to consider this bill, and we reported the rule at 5 a.m. this morning.

Why the rush to do this bill in the middle of the night? Is this bill so important, so time sensitive that the Republicans need to force it through the Committee on Rules in the dead of night? When I asked the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules why it was considered an emergency hearing, all he could tell me was that he called the emergency hearing because it is his prerogative as chairman of the committee and he wanted to do it this way. We had only an hour to look at this final bill, a bill that is close to 700 pages long.

This process, Madam Speaker, is disgraceful. It demeans this body, and it insults the American people who rely on us to read, to debate, and to vote knowledgeably on legislation. It is clear that the Republican leadership wants to rush this bill through this body as quickly as possible. The other body has already spent 2 weeks debating this bill. They will consider over 70 amendments before they are done. Republicans and Democrats alike have been able to bring their amendments to the floor in the other body and to be heard and to debate these issues. Fifty-eight amendments on the Medicare bill were brought to the Committee on Rules this morning. Only one substitute was made in order. Everything else, including some very thoughtful amendments offered by Republicans, was denied. We will have a grand total of 4 hours to discuss a bill that will fundamentally change the way 40 million Americans pay for the medicines that they need.

This process is awful, Madam Speaker; and this resolution will make it worse. The question is quite simple. Rather than naming more post offices on Wednesdays, why do we not have more debate? What is wrong, for example, with this House spending a few days or even a week on the Medicare prescription drug bill? Why not let more Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, have an opportunity to be heard? We obviously have the time; otherwise you would not be here asking for more suspensions to be scheduled. I understand that the majority has a responsibility to run the House, to move legislation through this process. The Committee on Rules can be a tool in that effort; but under this Republican leadership, the Committee on Rules has become not a tool but a weapon, a weapon that stifles debate, that shuts Members and their constituents out of the legislative process, destroys the committee process and harms the public interest, all behind closed doors and often in the middle of the night.

As Members know, and the American people are noticing, the Committee on Rules is where the sausage gets made and it is not pretty.

The facts speak for themselves. Two thirds of the rules reported by this committee in the 106th Congress were closed or restricted. That increased almost three-fourths in the 107th Congress. In fact, less than 30 percent of the rules reported by this committee in the 107th Congress were open. And so far this year of the 52 rules reported by the Committee on Rules six have been open rules, six of 52.

All of this may sound like Inside Baseball to most Americans, but as we can see with the prescription drug bill this stuff matters. In the House of Representatives process determines a great deal, and lately, Madam Speaker, the process around here has been lousy.

When they were in the minority, Republicans consistently complained about their treatment by the then Democratic majority. So if this is payback for the way Democrats ran the House, then call it payback, but please do not claim that this is fair and balanced when it is clearly not. Americans are better served with an open democratic process. It is in the public interest to allow the full and free debate and to have many people and many different points of view heard and considered by Members of the people's House.

In 1994, while still in the minority, Chairman Dreier gave a speech about the undemocratic nature of the Committee on Rules. In that speech he said that ``the arrogance of power with which they prevent Members, rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, from being able to offer amendments, that is what really creates the outrage here.'' The wisdom of his words still apply today. The arrogance of power is indeed a dangerous thing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the House Committee on Rules.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), another member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, let me echo a point that was made by my colleague from Massachusetts about the importance of the amendment process and how it promotes congressional accountability. Let me read my colleagues a quote: ``What does the ability to offer an amendment have to do with accountability? If a Member has the power to

offer an amendment, he can no longer claim to support one thing, but then say that he was blocked in his effort to make a change in the law. In addition, with more floor votes and more clear issues, Members will be forced to take clear positions with their votes. That is exactly what the American people want: fewer excuses and more elected officials who actually stand for something.''

That quote, Madam Speaker, was made by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). I agree with that quote.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my friend, seems confused as to why we are having this debate. He has asked for the amendment resolution to be read over and over, so let me try to clear something up. The reason why we are having this debate today is because we believe that this House is becoming a place where trivial issues get debated passionately, and important ones, not at all. The fact that what they are asking for is an additional day to debate essentially nonconsequential, trivial issues bothers us because we are constantly being told by the majority that we do not have enough time to make everybody's amendments in order. We do not have enough time to allow this House to deliberate. We do not have enough time to make sure that the democratic process works, and that all Members, Democrats and Republicans, have an opportunity to have their constituents' voices be heard on this House floor. So that is why we are having this debate.

We are having it in a particularly passionate way today because of what went on earlier this morning in the Committee on Rules. The prescription drug bill, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with, an issue that impacts 40 million of our senior citizens in this country, this bill was brought to the Committee on Rules in the middle of the night, and virtually every amendment and all of the substitutes except one were ruled out of order, were denied. So these people will not have an opportunity to be heard on the floor today.

I mean, we are stunned. We are shocked. We are appalled that on a bill this important that they are rushing it to the floor under an extremely restrictive process, limiting debate so that we are not going to have much of a debate here on this House floor.

In the other body they have been debating it for 2 weeks, over 70 amendments, and they are still debating it; but here in the people's House, we are supposed to represent the people. We are supposed to be the body of government closest to the people. We are being told that we have to do it in a matter of a few hours, let us do it quickly, no amendments and get out of here. That is not the way to do it.

This is too important; and for some of us who worry that they are trying to privatize and weaken Medicare, it is appalling that we do not have an opportunity to have amendments on this floor to protect Medicare, to make sure that it does not wither on the vine, to make sure that it is there for future generations.

That is what is at stake here. That is what we are talking about is so important.

I want to close by making an appeal to some of my Republican colleagues who routinely come before the Committee on Rules and, like many Democrats, get routinely shut out of the process. Many of them were there last night, early this morning, at 2:00, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning trying to get their amendments made in order, very thoughtful amendments. They were shut out of the process. I want to speak to them just for one second and urge them to join with us in voting against this resolution. Send a message to your leadership that everybody in this Congress deserves respect and everybody should be heard, that the constituents that I represent are as important as the constituents that you represent, are as important as the constituents that are represented by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of this Chamber.

So this is an important vote, and the debate we are having today is very relevant and very relevant to the topic at hand. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this. We are spending too much time naming post offices and not enough time debating the issues that real people care about. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, the disrespect that the majority has for the democratic process is evident today.

The majority brings this to the floor, does not deign to discuss it. Perhaps they are going to wait until they have the very last word, which they are entitled to under the rule; but I do not understand why they should think it is not worth their time and energy to discuss the issues we are trying to solve.

I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia on his time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for confirming my point. He said the Clerk has read it twice. Okay, America. You have heard specifically the language read twice. You should be grateful for that.

There are philosophical implications here. We have been meeting only on an average of 2\1/2\ days a week. You are now going to make 3 out of 2\1/2\ days eligible for suspensions.

The chairman of the Committee on Rules said previously, 25 years ago the Democrats went from 1 day to 2. That was 2 days out of 4 days. You have shrunk the time we are in session and increased the amount for suspensions.

The refusal to discuss this announcement, arrogantly, Hey, I read the rule, what more do you want, is what we are getting at.

What we have here is what political philosophers have called authoritarian democracy. It is a view that as long as ultimately a majority ratifies a result, that is all that counts. Well, that is a very unfortunate view of democracy. It is not the view of democracy of the U.S. Constitution, of the Rules of the House of Representatives, or any self-respecting parliamentary democracy.

What we want to have is debate. What we want to have is to air for the public. We are here as the representative body for a great democracy. What is important is not simply the result, not simply your ability, which I envy, to get your Members to vote in a majority for things that they do not like. You are going to produce a majority today for a prescription drug bill for which most of your Members are going to go home and take a prescription drug to cure the headache and the stomach ache and the backache and the twisted arms that they are going to get either from voting for it or after voting for it. But you can get them to do it.

Well, here is what happens. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Rules said as we debated this in the Committee on Rules, it is partly because there is such a narrow majority that you have to go to these tactics. That is backwards. The narrower the majority in the House, the more respect there ought to be for the procedural forums that allow things not to be forced.

Here is what we have: an ideologically driven majority on the Republican side, very much controlled on key issues by their most extreme ideological cohort, and they are determined to put legislation through that many of their Members do not like. And the key, by the way, is not yes or no on the final bill. This is where you go on suspension. It is a terrible abuse of the democratic process to take a complex issue like we had on Israel yesterday, and I voted for it, but I would have liked to have voted for some amendments. I would like to be able to affirm that Israel has a right of self-defense, but ought to consider as a matter of prudence and as a matter of their own self- interests whether or not they should use it as often as they are entitled to. But it comes up on suspension.

And the important questions are often not ``yes'' or ``no,'' but ``yes, but,'' and ``no, except.'' You do not allow that. You bring them up under suspension because this is your view, only the end result counts. If you can get a majority for the end result, the debate process gets collapsed; and whether or not there are amendments, whether or not there is any modification, that is not allowed.

Here is why: there are people on the Republican side who campaign in their own districts on one set of principles and then come here and enable exactly the opposite to become the law of the land. And here is how they do it. They say to people, oh, I would not vote on that. We are going to vote next week on whether or not, or 2 weeks, whether or not you should be allowed to receive Federal money for secular purposes, and then deny employment to people because you do not like their religion. That is what is going to be up. And we are not going to get to vote on this if past practice is any guide, because we have twice asked to vote on that specific issue; and the Republicans said, no, no, we do not want you to vote on that.

The reason is that if their Members had to vote individually on that, many of them would have to vote not to allow that discrimination because that is what they told people they stand for. So what the Republicans will do will be to bring forward what we call a rule. It is a procedure which will prevent people from voting on the very issue that they claim to support. And then having voted to prevent themselves from voting, they will go to their own constituents and say, you know, I agree; but I was not given a chance to vote. That is what we are dealing with.

That is what happens when you have more suspensions, and this is very relevant to this rule. You take things like the Israel resolution and resolutions on the war and on the troops and on genetically modified foods, all of those were resolutions which I supported, but with which I had some subordinate cause differences. I would have liked to have been able to participate in a democratic process to try to amend them, I think, to strengthen them.

You were afraid, you in the majority, Madam Speaker, to allow that to happen. You wanted to make some political points, so you bring these forward in an unamendable form and you say to people, you are going to have to vote for it. Even if you only agree with 90 percent, we are not going to let you try and change or modify the 10 percent, because then we will say, oh, you are not patriotic, you are not a supporter of the State of Israel, you are not a supporter of the American economy.

That is an abuse of the process, because democracy does not simply means the end result. It means an open process of debate. It means letting people try to change each other's minds. It means letting the American people through the media understand what is going on. What we have is a systemic process here not to allow that.

Madam Speaker, it is not a matter of time. We are told we do not have enough time.

By the way, when I came here and was told by the majority, well, that is the way it used to be. No, it was not. By the way, to the extent that there were abuses in the past, I objected. When I was in the majority, I helped lead a change in the rules because too often, both sides in a conference report took the same position. And I fought for the rights of minorities to take 20 minutes on the conference report.

Madam Speaker, when I came here, we had something called the 5-minute rule. We debated. We yielded to each other. We debated defense bills for 3, 4, and 5 days.

The majority, in the interests of making sure that it gets its Members to do whatever they are told to do without being embarrassed on subordinate issues, has beaten down democracy. They have collapsed democracy into meaning simply the end product. And debates on amendments and public discussion, as evidenced by this today, hey, I read the rule; what do you need? Well, democracy needs debate, discussion. It needs a joinder of the issues, and we do not get that. And we do not get it, as I said, primarily to protect; and we have Members who are not as conservative as the center of gravity on the Republican Party, and I apologize to some in the Republican Party for saying ``center of gravity,'' because I know to many of them ``center'' is a dirty word.

So there are moderate Republicans, so-called, who do not agree with their party's positions. What they are now doing is voting with their party on a series of procedures that disallow democracy, disallow debate, disallow amendments, and that allows them then to appear to be for certain positions when they have voted to collapse them. That is why this rule is a great disservice to democracy.