Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1046 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1046 is a same-day rule that allows the consideration today of certain legislation that may be reported from the Rules Committee.

Specifically, it allows for the consideration or disposition of a bill to authorize the trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war, a bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the Homeland Security appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2007: Three very significant pieces of legislation that need to move through this body before we break for the October District Work Period.

It is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This resolution lays the foundation so that the House can complete its business and send outstanding legislation to the Senate and to the President's desk. We are working to move this process along toward the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

The House Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide the rules for possible consideration of these items, such as the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the legislation to deal with these violations of the laws of war, modernizing our approach to dealing with terrorists and those who plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, who fly planes into the symbols of our military power, the symbols of our economic power, those who would blow up our embassies, those who would target innocent civilians in a

way that is unprecedented in the history of modern warfare, as well as legislation to update and modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Obviously, you can tell by the title of the act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, that it is badly in need of reauthorization. Clearly, technology changes, the sophistication of communications, and the diversity of the threats that face this Nation all beg for us to act and modernize that legislation so that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to prevent future attacks on American soil and to protect our forces and our civilians abroad.

I am pleased this same-day rule will facilitate the timely deliberation, discussion, debate of these important issues. I urge my colleagues to support this. This is a procedural motion that allows us to move forward with the meat and potatoes that are important for the safety and security of this country, those legislative items that will be considered later in the day.

So this is an important procedural obstacle that we need to clear out of the way to allow for consideration of these items so that we can move forward to the remaining agenda items for this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments on the prescription drug debate, the energy debate, and the student loan debate. I would remind my friend that we are here to facilitate action on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modernization, and the military tribunals bill, and with her help we can move this procedure along and continue to act on behalf of the American people to make them safer.

Madam Speaker, we need to get the boots on the ground to secure our borders, the money for 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, new Customs officials, and the modernization and authorization for our intelligence and law enforcement officials to utilize the best technology and the best communications to prevent and disrupt any potential plans to attack our homeland. Those are the items that are embodied in this bill that we are considering at this time, and, as I said, with her assistance we can move forward and then be able to again address the other issues that she mentioned, on top of the work that we have already done in passing three major energy bills in the past 18 months that deal not only with fossil fuels and the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that deal with the expansion of refining capacity in this country, which was largely blocked by the other side of the aisle, an energy policy that provides prizes in the form of monetary grants to those innovative individuals around America who find the next big thing, who can innovate on a hydrogen type of fuel cell or the hybrid and continuing to build on that, building on the tax incentives that we passed through this body that encourage people to purchase hybrid vehicles, looking at renewables, solar, and wind.

All of those things, Madam Speaker, are part of the energy bills that we have passed in this House, and now we need to pass these items of important national security. That is what this bill does.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman protests too much because he failed to acknowledge that he had an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage on this floor in this body. He had an opportunity to vote to extend tax credits for research and development, something that is certainly important to California, his home State, the birthplace of the silicone revolution and which allows us to keep on the cutting edge of the economy.

The research and development tax credits allow us to compete in the global marketplace so that companies can be global headhunters and bring in the best talent from around the world, create jobs and build businesses here in this country. Not only did he vote against the minimum wage for the lowest end of the workforce spectrum, but he voted against extending those same incentives to invest in laboratories, to invest in innovation, to invest in intellectual capital in this country at the high end of the workforce spectrum as well.

He also denied the opportunity for 10 States in this country to be able to extend the sales tax deductibility, the

same type of State and local deductibility that other states enjoy on a regular basis in this country. And he denied hundreds of thousands of small businesses around this country and family farms the opportunity to keep what they have built, to allow their business to pass from one generation to another.

He has had the opportunity to vote on a minimum wage, and he chose to vote against it. I think he protests too much about the success of the agenda that this House has put forward.

When it comes to education, we have increased student loan limits from $3,500 for first-year students to $3,500 and to $4,500 for second- year students. There are now 1 million more students today receiving Pell grants than there were 5 years ago. That is substantial progress in higher education, investing in the future, investing in the intellectual capital of this country. That is the real story.

And what is it that prevents him from talking about the actual issue at hand? Why can't we hear from the other side as much eloquence about the need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Why don't we hear the same eloquence about the need to complete our work on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which will continue the work of securing our border, add 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, add new Customs agents, continue to make our ports safer, continue to build on the good work that goes on throughout this country by hard-working men and women who are doing their best to prevent future terrorist attacks?

Why can't he talk with the same eloquence, the same emotion, the same passion, about the need to pass meaningful legislation on tribunals to deal with those terrorists who have already been captured trying to do great harm to this country? Those are the issues before this House, and that is the debate that is missing from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman asked me a question. I'm happy to answer. I'll provide him a list of farms in Central Florida.

Would the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman has been on this floor a number of years longer than I have, and certainly he understands the rules. But he also understands it is normal procedure that when one Member asks a question of another Member, that surely it is appropriate for the other Member to rise and ask that that Member yield so they may be given the opportunity to answer.

I regret the personal tone that this debate has taken, because these are important issues, these are important challenges our Nation faces. And the simple fact is, the gentleman doesn't want me to answer those questions, because he knows that we have acted in each and every one of those cases.

Since the beginning of Medicare, the Democratic majority did not take advantage of the opportunity to modernize it so that it actually helped the people it was intended to serve by providing them a prescription drug benefit. It was this majority that provided that. Today, millions of Americans have access to prescription drugs who did not have that same access under the old regime.

Why is there such a bitterness that Wal-Mart and Target and other chain drugstores who will undoubtedly follow have used the marketplace to lower drug costs? Are you so angry that the government didn't force them to do it? Are you so angry that they responded to market conditions, and today millions of people will be able to get $4 pills without the government having to have intervened?

Does it require a fiat to make you feel fulfilled? The simple fact that they made a good business decision through competitive forces in the marketplace and they lowered prices and people will benefit and consumers will benefit, and they will be healthier and they will live longer lives, does it make you angry that that did not come out of this body, that it didn't come out of some law, some decree? Is that what the bitterness comes from, that the market worked?

There are good things coming out of this body, but, more importantly, Madam Speaker, good things come from functioning markets. $4 pills by the largest retailer in the world that didn't come out of legislation, that didn't come by fiat, that didn't come by decree. It came because market forces worked, and consumers benefit and patients are healthier and patients have access to pills at a lower cost than they would have before.

This is a same-day rule to deal with foreign intelligence surveillance, to

deal with Homeland Security appropriations and military tribunals. Let's move it forward.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether the gentleman from Wisconsin might want to share some parliamentary lessons with the gentlewoman from Texas as he did with me.

I would be happy to yield.

The gentleman took great umbrage at me asking to yield to answer his question.

Reclaiming my time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am reclaiming my time. I offered you the time. I reclaimed it. That is my understanding of how the situation works. And we heed the gavel.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman again that the House had an opportunity to pass a minimum wage bill, and we passed it over the objections of the other side of the aisle. We passed it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I am glad he does not represent the collectivist view of some on the other side of the aisle in that he appreciates that market forces, not government decree or government fiat, are driving down prices. I am glad that he recognizes the role that free enterprise plays in delivering better, faster, cheaper health care to patients in need.

This bill before us, though, Mr. Speaker, is about updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, moving forward on homeland security appropriations, and moving forward on a tribunal issue so that we deal with the terrorists who have already waged war on American soil and those who have been collected in the battlefield in the subsequent conflicts. This is the issue before us.

While there has been a great deal of passion and bitterness thrown around this Chamber, this is a same-day rule to move forward on those three items.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, in my short 6 years here, I don't think I have ever seen nerves so raw on a same-day rule. It is, I think, a function of the calendar, a function of the end of the session where temperatures run high and passions are certainly in overdrive as we all are watching the clock wind down and wanting to make our points to the American people.

The points that are embodied in this legislation before us at this moment are keeping America secure. Most of the debate on this same-day rule has not been on the topic at hand.

We have successfully passed Medicare modernization, something that was not accomplished in the previous 40 years. It was this majority that accomplished that and gave seniors the modern access to prescription drugs that they did not have previously.

It was this Congress that delivered not one but three substantial energy independence bills.

Bills that would allow us to reduce our reliance on countries that often don't like us for the economic lifeblood that this Nation requires, by expanding our own capacity, expanding exploration, expanding refining capacity, expanding renewables, putting an emphasis on American agriculture so that we can grow our way to energy independence, investing in renewables like solar and wind and hydroelectric, investing in long-term technologies like hydrogen. That was this Congress that passed those items in three different vehicles, including a passage that would have fixed the Clinton administration's billion dollar giveaway to Big Oil in the Gulf. That was this Congress that passed that legislation, over the objections of the minority.

The issue at hand is homeland security appropriations, the funds that are necessary to put boots on the ground on the border; to hire 1,200 new Border Patrol agents; to expand the Customs capabilities; to use the technology and communications capacity that this great Nation brings to bear to break up, disrupt, and arrest terrorists who are plotting to do us harm. That is in this bill.

To update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Surely, surely, there must be agreement that this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 should be modernized to reflect things like the cell phone, multiple access to the Internet, all the tools the terrorists use to plot against innocent women and children and civilians and our military personnel at home and abroad. This is the vehicle to accomplish that. This is the vehicle that allows us to move those items that are so important to this agenda.

We have already moved the energy items they were talking about. Passed. We have already passed out of this body a minimum wage that they were so eloquent and so passionate about. Many voted against it, but it passed this body under this majority. We have passed the prescription drug plan. We have increased the number of students benefiting from Pell Grants.

But this piece of legislation that nobody wanted to talk about deals with national security, protecting our people, securing our borders, listening to the bad guys, locking them up and keeping them from doing future harm.

Let us move this same-day resolution. Let us move this agenda to keep America safe, secure, and prosperous. Let us continue to have a free society that creates free enterprise, that creates capitalism so that companies can choose to do things like lower drug prices on their own, not by government decree. Let us foster that type of environment. Let us foster the type of research and development and the investments that are required for research and development that were opposed by the other side when we moved the minimum wage bill. Let us continue to press on with that agenda, the secure America agenda, the economic prosperity agenda, and embrace the free enterprise and entrepreneurs. That is the agenda that we are moving forward in this same day.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans agree in the primacy of national security issues. But Democrats also recognize that middle-class Americans are worried about several other things as well, all of which affect a different type of security: Their economic security. And Democrats are prepared to remain here until the full scope of problems facing our constituents is addressed.

H. Res. 1046 is a martial law rule suspending the rules of the House. It would allow the majority to bring several bills to the floor the same day the Rules Committee meets to report those bills. Two of the three items allowed to come immediately to the floor were made public late last night. The third bill may be passed by the Senate today.

What this means is that, yet again, it will be almost impossible for Members to read the bills before being asked to vote on them. This abbreviated approach to legislating is not new. However, the 109th Congress seems likely to have taken this to a new level. We are on track to set a record for the fewest days spent voting in our lifetimes.

This is beyond being unreasonable to the American people. They sent us all here to do a job, to vote, and to do our part to fix the problems they face each and every day. They pay the price for our inaction at the pharmacy, at school, and in their paychecks. So it is worth taking a look at what remains undone when Congress works so little.

We still need to fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations here. We have not passed a comprehensive national energy policy that puts us on the path to energy independence by focusing on alternative and renewable sources of energy. We should allow the Federal Government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors and people with disabilities. We should restore the massive cuts to Federal student financial aid that Congress made earlier this year. And we have not had a clean vote to raise the minimum wage.

Democrats want to address each of these issues before we go home for the elections, but the majority has made it clear, through this rule, that the House leadership will not consider these priorities before leaving town.

This martial law rule would allow us to consider a conference report for homeland security funding. But even after this agreement passes, massive holes will remain in our homeland. The majority has not taken action to make sure that first responders can talk to each other, a key problem on September 11, 2001. According to legislation passed by this majority, the issue will not be fixed until 2009. That is unacceptable.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the Federal Government still does not have a consolidated terror watch list at our airports, and without proper funding, TSA cannot implement the full range of security measures necessary to protect us.

Finally, we do not have 100 percent screening of cargo coming into our ports. These holes are the reason that the 9/11 Commission gave Congress failing grades late last year.

The majority has defeated multiple Democratic attempts at fixing these problems. Democrats want to fix these holes before we leave town.

Let us consider another of the issues that I mentioned. The need to create a forward-thinking energy policy that places us on the path to energy independence. Energy touches the core of our national security during a time of global upheaval, so it affects the economic security of every person across this country and it affects the ability of businesses to compete. We cannot afford to be dependent on volatile regions of the world, and it is impractical and unwise to believe we can drill our way out of this problem.

It is long past due for the Federal Government to make an unprecedented commitment towards energy independence. We need to drive the development and deployment of renewable and alternative sources of energy. We also need to encourage the use of energy efficient technologies to help our families and businesses reduce their energy consumption.

Achieving energy independence will not happen overnight. It will require a long-term sustained effort of government, businesses, and families. But America has always been up to challenges like this, and Democrats want that effort to start now, before we go home for the elections.

Another issue we failed to address is the need for the Federal Government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors. Almost eight out of every 10 seniors who signed up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit in California have a plan with a so-called donut hole. This means that almost 300,000 seniors and disabled workers will see a gap in coverage. Even though these individuals will receive no help with their prescriptions, they are required to keep paying premiums to the Federal Government.

And those drug prices are higher than they need to be. Congress already allows the Veterans Administration to negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. As a result, veterans get the prescriptions they need for less. It is a great program. But when Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, it specifically prohibited the Federal Government from doing the same price negotiation for seniors. That is wrong, and Democrats will fight to fix this problem before we leave town.

Madam Speaker, also as a result of working only 88 days thus far, we have also neglected to fix the misguided cuts in student aid that Congress approved earlier this year. In February of this year, the majority voted for the largest cut in student aid in history: $12 billion. Congress took this vote despite the fact that parents and students all across the country are struggling to access this doorway to opportunity.

With the cost of college skyrocketing, the average college student is now more than $17,000 in debt. Many are paying above-market interest rates in order to finance their education. Madam Speaker, a college education should be an opportunity, not a burden. Democrats are committed to reversing these terrible cuts before we leave town so that every student has the opportunity to succeed.

In closing, Madam Speaker, Democrats are interested in addressing the full range of problems that worry the American people. As I have mentioned, we should start by allowing the Federal Government to negotiate prescription drug prices, we should also reverse the cuts to student aid, and we are prepared to stay at work until we do so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, to correct the record, there has been no clean vote to raise the minimum wage, and it is that important.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would like to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin to respond.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a comment that the Department of Veteran Affairs has been very successful lowering prescription drug prices by negotiating directly with the drug companies.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so the House can immediately take up five important bills that actually do something to help Americans and make them safer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides for immediate consideration of the following five bills.

One, a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Two, legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25.

Three, a bill to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities.

Four, a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and would expand the size and availability of Pell Grants.

Five, a bill to roll back tax breaks for large oil companies and invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, every one of these bills will make important changes to help hardworking Americans and their families. These bills should have been enacted a long time ago. But there is still time and opportunity to do something today. All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous question. For once, let's do the right thing and help the people we were sent here to serve.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Madam Speaker, here we are, close to adjournment, maybe 48 hours from now the Congress will go home for the elections, and we will leave millions of Americans who work at the minimum wage, who are stuck at a poverty wage, because of the failure of this Congress to address that issue.

What that means is that for those millions of Americans who go to work every day, all year long, at the end of the year they will end up poor. They end up with the inability to provide for their families, to provide for their health care, to provide for their transportation and the education of their families.

Why is that so? Because for 10 years, the Republicans in the Congress have successfully fought any increase in the minimum wage, and they have done it proudly. They believe that these people aren't entitled to any more money than the minimum wage that they are receiving today. Now, that minimum wage has less purchasing power than at any time in the 50 years we have had the minimum wage. These people are falling behind every day, every month.

We just saw yesterday in the newspapers that health care costs went up 7 percent. We know what has happened to families with energy costs. We know what has happened with utility costs. We know what has happened with educational costs and with the price of groceries. All of these things have gone up in these people's lives, but what hasn't gone up is the wages they work at.

The Republican Party is apparently perfectly content, even though we have the votes to pass the minimum wage, we have the votes in the Senate to pass the minimum wage, they are completely content to go home without an increase in the minimum wage.

It is shameful, it is sinful, the treatment of these people and the families in which they reside. The Republicans cannot see their way clear to put a clean vote on the minimum wage up or down on the floor of the Congress so that we can increase the financial capabilities of these families.

When you have the testimony of people like the Wal-Mart Corporation, which prides itself in presenting to America everyday low prices, theoretically, the least expensive place you can shop for the goods that they carry, they are now asking for an increase in the minimum wage because they say that the people who are coming to their stores simply don't have sufficient moneys to provide for the necessities of life. They don't have the money to buy the necessities they need, even in their stores. That is an indication of how important an increase in the minimum wage is.

The other terrible tragedy is that the Republicans refuse to roll back the raid on student aid that they engaged in earlier this year, when they took $12 billion out of the student aid accounts. They didn't recycle that money for the well-being of students to lessen the financial burden of families who are trying to put their children through school. They didn't do any of that. They took that $12 billion and they put it over here to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this Nation.

That is the investment they made. They took $12 billion that the Congress and the government has been using to finance student aid programs, and they moved it into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. They do that at a time when the basic Pell Grant for the most needy students, it only covers 30 percent of college costs today. When it was enacted, it covered 70 percent, and it has fallen behind.

The President had pledged to raise the Pell Grant to $5,100. Five years later, that hasn't been done. The President has broken his promise. We have been asking that we increase the Pell Grant to $5,100 to make it easier for students, and to take that $12 billion they took out of the student aid account and recycle it into the loan programs for students so that we can continue to try to help students meet the cost of debt.

Congresswoman Matsui talked about the average student today graduating with debt of some $17,500. We are now seeing a significant number of students who are perfectly qualified to go to college, to take advantage of college education, and they are not doing so, or they are postponing it because they are worried about whether or not they will be able to manage the debt when they graduate or whether they will be able to assemble the resources to go to college on a current basis.

That is a tragedy for this country. At a time when we talk about the competitiveness of this Nation, at a time when we talk about the need to have an educated population, to deal with innovation, to deal with discovery, to deal with the future economy, we are foreclosing the higher educational opportunity for hundreds of thousands of students because of the debt, because of the cost.

Because of the actions of the Republicans in this session of the Congress and the refusal to roll it back, students will now be paying 6.8 percent on their loans instead of 3.4 percent. Parents will be paying 8.5 percent instead of 4.25 percent.

This is a tragedy. This is the tragedy of the Republicans' failure to address the needs of middle-income Americans who are struggling to educate their kids, to pay their energy bills, and minimum wage families who are simply struggling to survive in America today. It is a tragedy and a blight on this session of the Republican leadership in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, September 28, 2006, I could not be present for votes because I was in Michigan to attend the memorial service of the spouse of one of my longtime staffers.

House rollcall vote No. 495--I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to order the previous question on H. Res. 1045. Voting ``no'' would have allowed the House to take up the following 5 bills: A bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; a bill to increase the minimum wage to 7.25 per hour; a bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities; a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and to expand the size and availability of Pell Grants; a bill to roll back tax breaks for large petroleum companies and to invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence.

House rollcall vote No. 496--I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to order the previous question on H. Res. 1046. Voting ``no'' would have allowed the House to take up the following 5 bills: A bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; a bill to increase the minimum wage to 7.25 per hour; a bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities; a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and to expand the size and availability of Pell Grants; a bill to roll back tax breaks for large petroleum companies and to invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence.

House rollcall vote No. 497--I would have voted ``no'' on the passage of the Martial Law Rule, H. Res. 1046, bypassing House rules that ensure that Members of the House have adequate time to review legislation before voting on it.

House rollcall vote No. 498--I would have voted ``no'' on the previous question on H.

Res. 1052, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Act. Defeating the previous question would have allowed the House, immediately after the rule is adopted, to take up a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

House rollcall vote No. 499--I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 1052, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5825, Electronic Surveillance Act. This Rules Committee reported out a closed rule, which allowed for no amendments and limited debate on a bill that has strong, bipartisan opposition.

House rollcall vote No. 500--I would have voted ''yes'' on Representative Thompson's Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4954-- SAFE Port Act. Mr. Thompson's motion instructs conferees to agree to the Senate provisions to improve security for America's rail, subway, buses and trucking systems; and to the Senate provisions to strengthen aviation security, secure the border, create a National Warning and Alert System, and provide first responders with post-disaster health monitoring. I was pleased this measure passed by a vote of 281-140, with all Democrats voting yes.

House rollcall vote No. 501--I would have voted ``yes'' on the Schiff/Flake/Harman/Inglis Motion to Recommit. The bipartisan substitute would update provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, to provide intelligence agencies more flexibility in emergency situations and less bureaucratic red tape when applying for warrants, while still requiring court orders for domestic surveillance of Americans. The motion to recommit failed by a vote of 202-221.

House rollcall vote No. 502--I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Act. I strongly support giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to fight terror. However, H.R. 5825 gives the President unnecessarily broad powers to eavesdrop on innocent Americans. The FISA court system has worked well for nearly 30 years--we should be expanding and reforming the existing system, instead of reducing judicial oversight and undermining our system of checks and balances.

House rollcall vote No. 503--I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 6143, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act. While I understand that some States may lose funding under the new formula, I believe it is important to reauthorize this program that is critical to far too many Americans. I am hopeful that as the bill moves to the Senate, we can increase the overall funding level for the program so that Congress does not have to pick winners and losers in combating this terrible disease.

Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion about prescription drugs and the difference in philosophy between allowing the free market to work to bring drug prices down versus having the Federal Government negotiate the prices. And I have spent some time in the private sector dealing with the Federal Government, and I have observed two different types of contracts. And I think they very well represent the two concepts in providing for prescription drugs for our seniors.

If you look at a Federal negotiations for drug prices, essentially you are looking at sole source contracts. This is where the Federal Government goes out and says, okay, you are going to be the provider for this prescription drug, and we want to know what your costs are and then we are going to give you a fair and reasonable profit margin on top of that.

Well, that philosophy has been used in Federal procurement for a very long time. In fact, during the 1980s, there was a lot of controversy during the expansion of our defense capabilities using sole source contracts. And when they reviewed these sole source contracts, the government found that in some cases, a pair of pliers was being sold for $750. In other cases, a hammer was sold for $1,200 under, again, a sole source contract. They even had coffee pots that were costing $4,200, again, a sole source contract.

And there was a big shift in philosophy in the procurement side of the Department of Defense to competition, competitive contracts, having two companies bid against each other to provide the same service or object so that they could get a lower fee.

What we have done in Medicare part D is provide a market-based strategy where individual companies are competing for the lowest price out there for the consumer, the person who is receiving the pharmaceuticals. And what we have seen is a significant reduction in price. And the competition has gotten so strong now that the bigger companies in our economy are starting to weigh in, like Wal-Mart. Wal- Mart now has gone to these prescription manufacturers and they have gone to generic manufacturers, and they have come up with a new method of being more competitive than everyone else.

Now, some people say Wal-Mart is an evil company, it is exactly what is wrong with America. I don't. I think Wal-Mart has been significant in contributing to productivity. In fact, they contributed about 20 percent of the productivity in the 1990s. They have raised the standard of living across America. They have 1.3 million employees. They have done an excellent job. And, today, they are moving into the pharmaceutical market where they are bringing lower cost prescriptions to seniors by negotiating rates and prices, and by competing in the free market at the highest level.

So I think that we should be very thankful that we are not doing a sole source contract for pharmaceuticals, because the philosophy of having it cost plus profit says to the pharmaceutical companies: Bury stuff in your costs. Put more research and development, put your overhead in there, expand your buildings, hire additional people that you may or may not need, but inflate those costs. Because when you do inflate those costs, then your profit, which is a percentage of cost, is actually greater.

So to have the Federal Government go out and negotiate these sole source contracts with pharmaceuticals encourages higher costs. It encourages companies to bury costs into the bottom line there so that they can show a higher profit; the profit which is a percentage would be higher because it is applied to a larger base or the cost of the pharmaceuticals.

Competitive forces in pharmaceuticals are bringing the price down. We saw projections when we were looking at Medicare part D legislation about how high the costs were going to be. Today, in a comparison, the costs for the same pharmaceutical drugs that are most common have significantly been reduced.

And now we've heard some concerns now about people hitting the so called donut hole and they have to pay now more for their prescription drugs than ever before. Well, that is not true. The price is lower. And, if you go back a couple of years, they were getting no help from Medicare part D. Today there is a donut hole; it does get some people, but there have been thousands and thousands of dollars per individual applied, including for my own family, where they have had help getting pharmaceuticals. And that has been an important contribution to our culture and to the health of seniors.