Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time this afternoon focusing on the fact that we have the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in our Nation's history. And I think it is also very important for us to note today that we have the first female Chair of the House Rules Committee in my good friend, Ms. Slaughter, and I would like everyone to join in extending congratulations to Ms. Slaughter.

Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I look forward to working in a bipartisan way in the spirit that was outlined by Speaker Pelosi, and I, of course, will treat the new Chair of the Rules Committee with the dignity that she deserves.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I do rise with mixed emotions today. I was very proud to join with you as we came down the center aisle escorting the new Speaker of the House, my fellow Californian. And I am very pleased that we have the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian American as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I have mixed emotions because, while I am very, very proud of Speaker Pelosi, and the new Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and others who are assuming leadership positions, I also am very disappointed.

I am disappointed as I look at this package that we are about to consider, because I do join with you, Mr. Speaker pro tempore, the distinguished majority leader, and Speaker Pelosi, as we have discussed privately and publicly, in our quest, and I think Speaker Pelosi put it extraordinarily well, focusing on the priorities that we have. We are, first and foremost, Americans. We are here to do the people's business and they sent a very strong message last November, and I believe we have an opportunity to do just that.

I will say that I remember very well the opening days of the 104th Congress, 12 years ago. I remember the very heady feeling that came from knowing that, for the first time, at that juncture, in almost half a century, we Republicans were in the majority of the House of Representatives, and we were going to do all that we had promised the American people.

We were that optimistic, quite frankly, because we didn't know any better. None of us had ever served in the majority and we were blissfully unaware of the pressures and problems associated with trying to govern this institution.

During the 109th Congress, the Democratic Caucus, many of whom actually served in the majority before 1995, made a lot of promises about how they would run this place if they ever achieved the majority again. Of course, they, unlike Republicans in 1994, had the experience of having run this place, having served in the majority. And I have a great deal of admiration for my colleagues, because they know exactly what they are facing. Knowing that, knowing exactly what they would face in the majority, they made a commitment to minority rights, should they regain the majority.

And that, Mr. Speaker, is why I said I am disappointed. The resolutions before us bear very little resemblance to the rhetoric on this floor and on the campaign trail. The much ballyhooed commitment to minority rights is virtually nonexistent in the measures before us today. They undermine minority rights that were constantly guaranteed when we were in the majority. The rights of the minority are undermined. Their promises are for a delivery date at some later point, if we agree to be cooperative, according to one Member on the other side of the aisle. And we have, as an IOU now, a wink and a nod and a gentle ``trust us.''

Mr. Speaker, trust is something that is in short supply in this House, and the actions of the incoming majority are, based on the package that has been brought before us early last evening, certainly less than 24 hours before we are considering it here on the House floor, are not doing a lot to bolster our reserves when it comes to the issue of trust. Despite an oft repeated commitment to provide Members with, as I said, at least 24 hours to review legislation before voting on the floor, we received this package at 6:15 last night, 6:15 only after that package was delivered to our friends up in the press gallery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, despite Speaker Pelosi's principle that we need to return to regular order for legislation, including a full committee process of hearings and markups and, I quote Ms. Pelosi here when she said we need an ``open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Now, we, in spite of that great directive that came forward, we have a rules package that actually self-executes closed rules for bills that haven't even been introduced, and won't even be going through the committee process. The section of the package that includes those closed rules is debatable for just 10 minutes. This is the polar opposite, the polar opposite of how the Republicans opened the 104th Congress, when our priorities were considered in regular order and under an open amendment process.

Mr. Speaker, also providing a stark contrast is the fact that we put in place, from day one, a guaranteed bite at the apple for the minority in the form of a motion to recommit. We felt so strongly about the fact that when we were in the minority we were denied that chance. So that is why at the beginning of the 104th Congress we put into place that guarantee for the minority.

But I must remind my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee that, time and time again, they have made clear their view that the motion to recommit is an insufficient opportunity to articulate their alternative. That argument was propounded constantly as we were dealing with public policy questions. So you can imagine how surprised I was when the Speaker recently replied to a reporter's question about Republican alternatives to

the Democratic priorities by saying, ``They'll have a motion to recommit.''

Even worse than five closed rules, Mr. Speaker, is the rollback of one of the most essential elements of transparency that Republicans put into place back at the beginning of the 104th Congress; that is, the right to know how a member of a committee votes on legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this rules package exempts the Committee on Rules from the requirement to publish the votes of its members on its committee reports, something required of every other committee except the Ethics Committee.

Now, in my 12 years as a member of the Rules Committee majority, we took more than 1,300 votes in committee, every single one of which was accurately reported in the committee's report.

Mr. Speaker, at best, this is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, it is an attempt to shield the Rules Committee from the public scrutiny of its actions.

We were told by the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee that ethics reform and rules reform were not just election year issues for Democrats. Now, Mr. Speaker, sadly, this document says something quite different than that. Promises were made, and they are not being kept. That is the thing that I find to be most troubling. We intend to explain the many inconsistencies for the record and as the debate moves forward.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we want to work with our democratic colleagues. Even with this treatment of minority rights, we stand here determined to work in a bipartisan way to confront the challenges that we all know face this country. Unfortunately, this rules package shuts us out from the start. It is my hope that the promises made will, indeed, be kept. But, Mr. Speaker, this package does not inspire a great deal of hope in that they in any way will.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of disappointment and a great deal of concern about the first actions that we are taking here.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate Ms. Castor and certainly welcome her to the Rules Committee and look forward to serving with her.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

My parliamentary inquiry is, may I ask of the Chair exactly what it is we are debating and considering at this point. The Chair of the Rules Committee stood up and said, after I gave my opening remarks, that we were in the midst of a debate on the last year's rules package. I was wondering if the Chair might enlighten us as to exactly what it is that we are considering.

For the consideration of the rules package for the 110th Congress, am I correct?

Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, at this juncture I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a very, very hardworking Member of the House, the Chair of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a hardworking former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very distinguished chief deputy whip, my good friend from Richmond (Mr. Cantor).

I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that I never used the words ``pain,'' I never said ``hurt.'' I said ``disappointment.'' I said disappointment, Madam Speaker, because I am very disappointed.

I will tell you this: I am prepared at this moment to take my three Republican colleagues and go right upstairs to the Rules Committee and go to work at this moment so that we don't have closed rules in the opening day rules package for consideration of measures that have not gone through the committee process and have not had any opportunity to even have our amendments denied in the Rules Committee.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Let me just say, we are prepared at this moment, Madam Speaker, we will send a resolution right now so the Rules Committee can begin meeting upstairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I will yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina who would like to be recognized.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee now, are there any further speakers on the majority side?

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

Madam Speaker, I am actually very enthused and excited about the great new opportunity that lies ahead for every single one of us. We have heard speeches today from our distinguished Republican leader, and we are all very proud that my fellow Californian has become the first woman to preside over the greatest deliberative body known to man. And, as I said earlier, I am particularly proud of the fact that I am being succeeded by the distinguished chairwoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), as the first woman to chair the Rules Committee.

I am enthused about the challenges that lie ahead, and I am very encouraged by the words that we heard from our new Speaker about the need for civility, about the need for us to make sure that we recognize that we are first and foremost Americans, and that the message from last November's election was a very clear one. It was a message that we should come together, work together, Democrats and Republicans alike, to solve the challenges that we face so that we can in fact do the people's business.

We are very proud of the accomplishments that we have had over the past 12 years, and I believe we can work with the new majority to build on those successes, the successes of ensuring that we have an economy that is second to none, an unemployment rate that is at near-record lows at 4.5 percent, strong domestic product growth, more Americans working than ever before in our Nation's history, more Americans owning their own homes, and more minority Americans owning their own homes.

I also am particularly proud of the fact that working together, Madam Speaker, we have been able to ensure that since that tragic day of September 11, 2001, we have not faced another attack on our soil.

The fact that we have not faced another attack is not an accident. It is because of good public policy and the leadership that we have had. Now we do have a change in leadership here in this institution, and there have been a wide range of promises that were made by Members who formerly served in the majority and now are coming back to majority status. As members of the minority, they talked about the need for enhanced minority rights. And I believe many of those things are very, very important. I believed them before, and I believe them now.

One of the things that I think is very important is for us to have an opportunity for consideration of measures here on the House floor that allow for a greater opportunity for Member participation. The thing that troubles me most is if we don't defeat this previous question and then defeat this rule that allows us to move forward, we will be proceeding with a package that will bring forward five closed rules, preventing the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to in any way consider the chance to bring forward amendments.

Never before, never before in our Nation's history have we seen an opening day Rules Committee that would allow for the consideration of five closed rules in the opening-day package. And one of the things, of course, that was discussed widely by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle which we have strongly supported is the notion of transparency, accountability, and disclosure.

One of the most troubling aspects of this measure is that we would move to prevent the Record from showing the votes that are cast in the Rules Committee.

We were very proud that we eliminated proxy voting when we came to majority status. Why? Because we wanted Members to show up to work, and we wanted the American people to see their work product.

Well, unfortunately, the American people understand what it means to show up to work. They understand what it means for greater disclosure and accountability and transparency. We heard the opening remarks during this rule debate on letting the sunshine in. The sun is shining outside today, and it is going to shine in. Under this provision, we see a prevention for the opportunity for the sun to shine in the Rules Committee, and I find it very troubling.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend this rule to make in order to consider the Speaker's minority bill of rights as was outlined on May 25, 2006, in her document ``New House Principles: A Congress For All Americans.'' We need to give the new majority an opportunity to live up to those commitments that were made.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

I object.

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

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

I would like to begin by extending my compliments to my very good friend from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. In fact, Mr. Hoyer just quoted John F. Kennedy and I believe that he was right on target in focusing on that brilliant quote of President Kennedy's where he said that we should not seek the Republican answer, we should not seek the Democratic answer, we should seek the right answer. I was struck with that, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we should join in strong support of this resolution, of support of this title; and I am going to urge my colleagues to join in voting in support of this title which uses the rules base of the 109th Congress as the basis for which these proposed changes are being offered.

But I think it is very important for us to note that if we are going to, in fact, seek the right answer as opposed to the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, we need to do that by vigorously pursuing the deliberative process about which we all speak. And I know that during the past several years, my very distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle raised concerns about a lack of deliberation that existed in this House and the fact that more amendments could have been made in order. I will acknowledge that we could have made more amendments in order. That was clearly an option there. But as my friend, having served in the majority, knows very well, there are challenges that need to be addressed when you are in the majority, challenges of managing this institution. I see him sitting there very comfortably and I am glad that he is comfortable at this point, but I know full well that he, Mr. Speaker, is going to face many management challenges in the days and weeks and months ahead.

But during the past couple of years, what we have heard is a commitment to minority rights made by those who were formerly in the majority, who were in the minority at that time and are now back in the majority. And so I would argue that the words of President Kennedy can best be implemented if we in fact do increase the level of deliberation, and that is why as we look at the proposed changes that we are going to be considering, I have to say that when it comes to the actual management, I am concerned. I am concerned about the prospect of, for the first time in the history of this institution, taking prospectively five closed rules and placing that in the opening-day rules package.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the prospect of taking this issue of transparency, accountability, and disclosure about which we on both sides of the aisle regularly talk because we are here to represent all of the American people, the notion of now saying again for the first time in the history of this great institution that we are going to create an opportunity whereby we will not have accountability and transparency in our very important deliberations that will take place in the Rules Committee.

And so again I would say in response to the brilliant words of President John F. Kennedy, as outlined by our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, that we do seek the right answer; and I believe that the best way to seek the right answer is through enhanced deliberation, and we have a chance to do that.

Now, I will when it comes to this vote urge my colleagues to vote in favor of title I. Title I, as you know, Mr. Speaker, simply provides a chance to use the opening rules package of the 109th Congress, and I think that that is a correct thing for us to do; and I hope the Democrats and Republicans alike, and the majority leader has just called for support of title I and I will urge the colleagues on our side of the aisle to join so that again we will be coming together and I think having the right answer on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. I really am very hesitant to interrupt the brilliance of my good friend from Fort Lauderdale.

Now that I have interrupted it, I just couldn't hesitate to interrupt when I heard that I somehow had a draft by virtue of knowing what the rules package that was put into place for the operation of the 109th Congress was? That was all we had. We had nothing whatsoever beyond the rules of the House and that is it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Pasco, I would simply like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at this point a copy of the draft that we received that is dated January 2, 2007. The time stamp on that is 5:45 p.m. I was informed that we had it last night at 6:10 p.m., and it had already been circulated to those in the press gallery by that point.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

The section that we are talking about right now is simply implementation----

It is simply implementation of the rules that have existed for the 109th Congress. I clearly was talking about the rules for the 110th Congress. In fact, if the gentleman was here when I had an exchange with the distinguished new Chair of the Rules Committee when she tried to argue that we somehow were debating the rules for the 109th Congress, the Chair confirmed the fact that we are in fact considering in toto the package for the 110th Congress using as base text the 109th.

What I have here and if I am able to gain unanimous consent for this, Mr. Speaker, to include in the Record, is the draft which uses the 109th base text and has the proposed changes, the different titles for the proposed changes for the rules of the 110th Congress.

I would ask unanimous consent to include this draft with the date and the time on it showing that it did not fall within the 24-hour notification period of time that my friends have consistently insisted on.

The gentleman objects to my including the draft?

Mr. Speaker, the simple point that I am trying to make is that we all know what the rules for the 109th Congress were. We have lived under those rules for the last 2 years. Yes, I was proud to have crafted those, working with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and we passed those at the beginning of the Congress and we are going to have a chance in just a few minutes to vote on those again.

The point is, it is not the rules of the 109th Congress that we didn't have a draft of. We did not have a draft until January 3 at 5:45 p.m., which clearly did not comply with that 24-hour requirement that has been put forward. And that is the only point that I am trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we can, in fact, join in a bipartisan way in supporting implementation of title I of this provision. And I believe that it is great that my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) began heaping praise on the many accomplishments of the 104th Congress when we implemented things like an end to proxy voting, term limits on committee chairmen, and the other items which we have which go on and on and on, increased transparency and accountability and disclosure.

I will say that, as I have said, I am very, very troubled and saddened by the inconsistency when it comes to the issue of transparency and disclosure in light of the discussion that Mr. Hastings of Pasco, Washington and I have had about closing down transparency in the Rules Committee now.

My friend from Florida mentioned the fact that I may be the champion of closed rules. I will admit that as chairman of the Rules Committee, I did bring more than a few closed rules here, primarily on bills that related to tax issues, which was done under the Democratic majorities of the past and I suspect will be done in the future as well. But I will say this: Never before, never before have I, as chairman of the Rules Committee, prevented the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to deliberate and including in an opening day rules package five closed rules. I am concerned as we move forward with that. We will have that debate later on. But I look forward to urging my colleagues to join in support of title I.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this package. Once again, I think we will have an opportunity for bipartisanship. The issue of ethics and lobbying reform is something that we believe is very, very important. As I sit here today, I am reminded of the fact that 1 year ago this month, Speaker Hastert and I stood right upstairs in the press gallery and unveiled a package for lobbying and ethics reform, which was maligned by many of our colleagues, unfortunately.

But I will say that I am very pleased with the fact that we were ultimately able to pass out of the House our measure, which did a number of things that I am happy to see are incorporated in this provision that is coming forward from the new majority.

The thing that troubles me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this was done in a unilateral way. We are all very proud of the fact that we have a working, strong, vibrant bipartisan Ethics Committee. It would have been great if we could have had the Ethics Committee come forward with these recommendations.

There has been no consultation whatsoever between the majority and the minority, although I will say, again, I congratulate those Members of the new majority for including, including many of the items that were either incorporated in H.R. 4975, which was our lobbying and disclosure act that we passed out of the House last year, and some of the provisions that Speaker Hastert and I outlined a year ago this month: free clearance of travel, a ban on travel and an end to gifts. An end to the K Street Project. These are all very important reforms that I do think are essential.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my very good friend from Massachusetts, and I congratulate him on his new position in the majority on the Rules Committee, what happens between today and March 1 of this year? Well, let us see, we have the month of January and the month of February, and, guess what, under this package, the status quo in the 110th Congress, under the Democratic majority, remains in place without any kind of reform or change.

So I have got to ask rhetorically, anyone who wants to answer as to why we are waiting until March 1 before we see any kind of implementation here. They want to see guidelines put forward, maybe by the Ethics Committee. If that is what they would like to do, why don't we impose an immediate ban until they come up with recommended guidelines?

So I will say that as I listen to these proposals, they are interesting, I am very pleased that they have incorporated them. I don't believe they go far enough. In a few minutes, my colleagues, Mr. Kirk and Mr. Shadegg, will be talking about concern on the pension issue, which unfortunately has been left out of this, but I do believe that by and large this is a measure that is going to be worthy of bipartisan support, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Will the gentleman yield? If you will recall, we passed

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, let me, again, say that we look forward to supporting this package, much of which, the items that the gentlewoman just outlined, were included in H.R. 4975, which passed this House last May with strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, let me just, before yielding to the gentleman from Marietta, say very quickly again, the legislation that passed the House, H.R. 4975, specifically banned the K Street Project. Look at the language. It is virtually identical. We focused on the issue of lobbyist travel and gifts. And I believe that we can come together in a bipartisan way. We want to work in a civil tone, as was outlined by Speaker Pelosi today.

Mr. Speaker, with that I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to congratulate the gentleman from New Hampshire. We welcome him here. Unfortunately, this package doesn't start today and start now. It starts March 1 of 2007, 2 months from now.

I also want to say to my very good friend from Massachusetts once again that if you look at the package that we passed in May of last year, it is a package that enjoyed bipartisan support. It is one of which we are very proud. And I believe that if you look at the fact that we did go beyond preventing registered lobbyists from coming onto the House floor and the gym, we are doing many of those same things here. It has been done before.

And that is why we are proud to be here in support of this effort, which, again, some of us believe does not go far enough and there are some problems with it, but we do believe it is a positive step. Why? Because it is a reaffirmation of what Speaker Hastert led us to last year.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I do congratulate my colleagues. I want to begin by saying as a Californian that I am very proud of the fact that California has provided the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similarly, I have congratulated our colleague, Ms. Slaughter, who will be the first woman to chair the Rules Committee in our Nation's history.

This has been a historic day and I believe a very exciting day for us. I am pleased that we have been able to do a number of things already in a bipartisan way, and I think this issue of ethics and lobbying reform, building on the reforms that we passed in the 109th Congress, utilizing those very positive provisions, is exactly what we are about to vote on here in just a few minutes; and I think that it is a time when we can be civil.

And I will say to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American people want us to deal with these problems, and I will reaffirm my commitment to my colleagues on the Rules Committee that I will continue to strive to comport myself in the most dignified way possible in dealing with my colleagues, and I urge support of this very important measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this opportunity for the minority party during this hour is dedicated to the subject of what we are going to be dealing with tomorrow, H.R. 5, and that regards the Medicare Part D prescription drug, allowing or, in fact, requiring the Secretary to negotiate prices. And this is a hugely important issue.

But I want to take just a minute to respond to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that just spent their hour with the Out of Iraq Caucus. In fact, they asked me for permission for an additional 5 minutes because they had some very passionate Members that had not had an opportunity to speak.

I gladly granted them that opportunity. That is what makes this Congress great. That is what makes this country great, the willingness to listen to diverse opinions.

But I want to say, and I want to take just a few minutes before we get into the discussion of Medicare Part D, how diametrically opposed I am to what the Out of Iraq group just had to say during this last hour, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, hour and 5 minutes.

I don't object to their right to have that opinion. I do certainly take exception, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, when folks stand up here, and I am not talking about new Members of this body. In fact, there was one new Member from Illinois, the gentleman from Illinois, who is going to be part of the Out of Iraq Caucus. I am talking about very senior, thoughtful Members. To stand up and suggest that the President lied to the American people, I think, is really not, in fact, even close to being the truth.

The President, I think, is an honest man. And last night, Mr. Speaker, in his presentation to the American people, I thought he did an excellent job of explaining why it is so important for us to try to apply, if not a knock out blow to the insurgence and the terrorism, the sectarian violence that is

going on in and around Baghdad, certainly, to strike a blow that would put them on the ropes, would get us off the ropes and put them on the ropes. And yet, we hear from the majority party wanting to tie the President's hands behind his back and our great military.

I think we have got a wonderful opportunity. Mistakes have been made. Absolutely. There is no question about that. I think the President acknowledged that last night in his 20-minute speech to the Nation. But we have an opportunity.

And this is really, I want my colleagues to think about this. This is not about the President's legacy. This is not about the legacy of Donald Rumsfeld, or General Abizaid or even our new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who we just heard from in a 3-hour hearing at the House Armed Services Committee, or our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, or General Petraeus. This is about 23 million Iraqi people. This is about the citizens of the United States of America. This is about the entire Middle East. In fact, this is about 6 billion people on this planet. And we have to, in my opinion, we have to support the plan. If we don't, even if our colleagues in the Out of Iraq Caucus absolutely abhor this President and would like to see his legacy be one of failure, surely, surely, they are with the American people. And I think they are. I think deep down within their heart, they are.

But I am absolutely convinced that they have not thought about the consequences of, all of a sudden, I mean, almost instantaneously pulling our troops out of Iraq, as they say. And I have heard many of them say that, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues. And the fact that, if that would happen, I think you would, indeed, have another Vietnam. You would, indeed, have a total bedlam and sectarian violence in the country of Iraq. You would have Syria and Iran taking over the Middle East.

And I just wonder how much longer the country of 7 million people in Israel would last. I mean, they have already pledged, Ahmadinejad and others, to drive them into the sea. And what respect, Mr. Speaker, would the world have for the United States of America if we, indeed, cut and run?

I am not suggesting that that is what they are saying. But I think that is a perception that the rest of the world would have. You cannot depend on the United States. And those terrorists would be back after us again.

We haven't had another 9/11 or any kind of a terrorist attack on this soil in 5\1/2\ years. But if we follow the recommendation of the Out of Iraq Caucus in this Congress, that is exactly what will happen. It will be far worse than 3,000 lost lives, of innocent people.

Certainly, the gentleman from Illinois, the new Member, I have great respect for all of the new Members, Mr. Speaker. And he talked about Martin Luther King, a man of peace. We need people, like Martin Luther King, that pray for world peace. I pray for world peace every day, and I know all of my colleagues do.

But we also need fighting men and women. We need a strong military when we get attacked, an unprovoked attack, when those prayers are not working so that we can defend this Nation.

So I am glad to give them an extra 5 minutes so it gives me an opportunity to refute most of what was said here in the last hour.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to the subject of the hour, and that, of course, is what is going to be on this floor tomorrow as part of the new Democratic majority's 100 hours. This will be H.R. 4.

We have had three bills this week. We have had the so-called 9/11, completion of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We had the minimum wage bill and then today of course the stem cell research issue.

And tomorrow what the Democratic majority wants to do is require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices. Government price control; put the government in the medicine cabinet of 42 million seniors and disabled folks who are part of the Medicare program and prescription drug Part D. And they want to do that, just as they have done with these other three bills this week, with absolutely no opportunity, no opportunity for the minority party or even members of the majority, maybe the rank and file, as many of us refer to ourselves, to bring amendments, to have an opportunity to go before the Rules Committee and say, you know, I think we can improve on this bill a little bit. There are certain things I have been thinking about it. I am a doctor. I am a nurse. I am a health care worker, and I think we can make this a little bit better.

But, no. No, no. This new Democratic majority that railed for the last 2 years almost every day that their rights were being trampled upon and their amendments were not made in order, and here we are with four bills this week.

We are not talking, Mr. Speaker, about naming Post Offices here. We are talking about hugely important pieces of legislation, legislation that is controversial. This issue today on stem cell research, and we are talking about the destruction of what I feel, as a strong pro-life physician, is a little human life. And the proof of the pudding of course is the snowflake babies, literally thousands of them. And to suggest that those little embryos are just extra and throwaway, and we don't need them, and why waste them? We didn't get an opportunity to offer a single amendment. And this same thing in regard to this Medicare Part D issue which will be debated on the floor tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, if there is ever an issue of the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it,'' it is this one, because this law that was passed in November of 2003 went into effect January 1 of 2005, the bill, the benefit, the optional benefit of prescription drugs under Medicare has only been in place for 1 year. And the success is unbelievable. I mean, it is far beyond anybody's expectations. It has an 80 percent approval when you poll seniors because they are getting their prescriptions, those who are having to pay for them, are getting them at a much lower price. The average savings is $1,100 a year for those who are paying their monthly premium and their deductible and their copay. And for those who, because of their low-income status, are virtually paying nothing but a dollar or maybe $3 to $5 for a brand name drug, if that is covered by the supplement because of low income, then they are saving at least $2,400 a year.

And so, Mr. Speaker, to try to improve upon something that is working so well, I think, is a grave mistake. And I think, as the expression goes, they are going to gum up the works.

Now, let me tell you how setting price controls works and how poorly it works for that matter. When we were debating this bill in 2003 in the committee on the House side, a Democratic Member, I think it was Representative Strickland, now Governor of Ohio, a very good Member of this body, suggested, had an amendment and said look, let's set the monthly premium at $35. Let's require that the monthly premium be $35, I guess, over concern that it could be higher than that.

Let us set it at $35. The same bill was introduced on the Senate side, and I am not sure which Senator, which Democratic Senator, introduced the bill on the Senate side.

But, again, to set that premium. Well, had we done that, then our seniors today would not be enjoying an average monthly premium of $24 a month, $24 a month, because the market, the competition between the multitude of prescription drug plans that are out there competing for business allowed that to happen as they brought down the price of drugs as they compete with one another.

I will give you another example in regard to the Medicaid program. You know, the States each have their own Medicaid program, and they can cover prescription drugs if they want to. They don't have to. Most do, and they set prices. The State governments do that to try to save money. They set prices.

Well, people who are eligible for both Medicaid, because of their low income, and Medicare, because of their age or disability, now these dual eligibles, the prescription drugs are paid for by the Medicare part D program as the first payer. Well, our community pharmacists are so upset because they were getting a higher price for prescription drugs under the Medicaid program than they are under this new Medicare part

D program which has forced those prices down. Obviously, the neighborhood druggists, the community pharmacists are making less money, and they are upset. I can understand that.

But this just goes to show you once again, when the government sets the price, it is just as likely, if not more likely, that they set the price too high. The bureaucrats are notorious for that. The marketplace would never let that happen because of competition.

This opportunity to talk about this subject tonight is a very, very important issue at an important time. We will talk about it on the floor tomorrow and try to proffer these same arguments against requiring the Secretary of HHS to set prices. It is the first step down the road toward a national health insurance program, a single-payer program, or, if you like, Hillary Care. I don't think the country liked Hillary Care when it was offered back in 1994, and President Clinton paid a price for that, a dear price.

It is just really surprising to me that the Democratic majority would come back with this type of issue.

I think what is driving it is the success of this program is so resounding, and they, my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that resisted this program every step of the way, fought it every step of the way, now I think they kind of want to get on the bandwagon and get a little credit for something.

But I warn them, I warn them, what I frequently hear them and others say, when you are in a ditch, when you are deep in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. I think they are digging themselves a bigger hole. And, politically, that is good for us. That is good for the Republican minority. That will help us regain the majority. But it is not good for the American people. It is not good for our needy seniors, and that is why I am so opposed to it.

I am very happy to have with me tonight a couple of my Republican colleagues, great Members, not just Republican Members that don't have special knowledge on this issue, but I am talking about a couple of our physician Members.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a fellow OB/GYN physician.

Dr. Burgess, thank you very much for that most enlightening discussion.

We have two other speakers, and again I mentioned at the outset Dr. Charles Boustany from the great State of Louisiana, a cardiovascular surgeon. And Dr. Boustany, we thank you for being with us tonight, and we want to turn it over to you at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the cardiothoracic surgeon who is doing such a great job now in his second term.

At this point, I want to turn the program over to my colleague from Georgia. Not only do we represent part of the same county, but we are both physician Members, and Dr. Price is an outstanding orthopedic surgeon, an outstanding Member of this Congress. In fact, I was at a very important press conference earlier this afternoon on this issue, and I heard Dr. Price, he may want to say it again; I don't mean to preempt him. But I heard Dr. Price say this looks like a solution in desperate search of a problem. And that kind of goes along with what I said earlier: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if the Democrats find themselves in a hole, they need to stop digging. So with that, I will turn it over to Dr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Price and Dr. Boustany for their very informative contribution to this hour.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that we have remaining and as we move toward wrapping up this hour, I want to just read a couple of quotes to my colleagues from former President Bill Clinton, who remains their rock star and who certainly tried to do some things on health care, unfortunately for him, unsuccessfully. But will listen to what President Clinton said in 1999 on his idea of a Medicare modernization proposal, which, as I say, was not passed: ``Under this proposal Medicare would not set prices for drugs. Prices would be determined through negotiations between the private benefit administrators and the drug manufacturers. Thus, the proposal differs from the Medicaid program in that a rebate would not be required and from the Veterans' Administration program in that no fee schedule for drugs will be developed. Instead, the competitive bidding process would be used to yield the best possible drug prices and coverage, just as it is used by large private employers and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan today.'' That was July 5, 1999.

And the then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, Secretary Shalala, on this same Clinton proposal said: ``Private pharmacy benefit management firms will administer prescription drug coverage for beneficiaries in original fee-for-service Medicare. These firms will bid competitively for regional contracts to provide the service. They, not the government, will continue to negotiate discounted rates with drug manufacturers, and beneficiaries will receive these discounted rates even after they exhaust the Medicare benefit coverage.''

You know, Mr. Speaker, again, I said at the outset of the hour, why are the Democrats doing this? I know that when this bill was first passed, like anything, there was concern. Well, you know, is this going to work? Is it going to be successful? And, of course, they all opposed it. I think there were just maybe a handful of Democrats that ultimately voted for Medicare modernization, the prescription drug act of 2003. And they were asking their constituents and seniors to tear up their AARP card. Some of them symbolically did that from the lectern here in this Chamber. They were just outraged that a senior organization could support a Republican proposal, which, of course, they did. And when it passed and then over the last year of the program, it has been so successful that

they want to get in on it, even though that was such a bad idea, as Bill Clinton and as the Congressional Budget Office have said, in response to Dr. Frist's request back in 2004, that allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices would not save any money. The program is working so well.

Every one of these bills that have been brought up this week under this special rule of no rule, no opportunity to meet in the Rules Committee and no amendments, all these issues, minimum wage and completing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and stem cell expansion, poll really high. Yet this particular issue is just the reverse of the information they have got. It is an 80 percent positive issue for us. So I can only presume that they still want a little skin in the game. They want to get on the bandwagon.

Well, I am going to tell you, what is going to happen is our seniors are going to get skinned because they are about to ruin a good program. A program that is working well, that 80 percent of our seniors are in favor of. It has brought down prices of prescription drugs. It has come in now at $22 a month average monthly premium and this is great satisfaction. And they want to try to improve on that by letting the government negotiate prices. It is going to be a disaster for them. And I hope some of their Members, if they are smart, from these districts that they won from our Members in these elections in November, in these marginal districts, they had better talk to their folks back home before they follow the lead of their leadership and vote for this atrocious piece of legislation.

I railed at the outset, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that the new minority has been given no opportunity for amendments on any of these first four bills that are brought up during their 100 hours, and I do think it is an atrocity. But they may be doing us a favor inadvertently by not allowing us to amend this piece of legislation, which can't be amended. It needs to be killed. We need to kill this sucker dead. And I think every Member on our side of the aisle will vote against it, and the smart ones on their side of the aisle will vote against it.

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

First, I want to apologize to the body. I thought that we went in at 10 o'clock this morning. When I left last evening, that is what it said. My staff did call me last night and tell me I needed to be on the floor by 9:30, but I thought they were gaming me, trying to get me here by 10 and telling me I had to be here by 9:30. Obviously, we did convene at 9, and I showed up at about 10 till. I thought I was 10 minutes early. So I apologize to my brethren for not being here.

There is an old saying that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, and a lot of us try to live by that. But in spite of our best efforts, sometimes we need prescription drugs. I am living proof of that. About a year ago, a year and a month ago, I was in a conference here in this Capitol with my friends in the other body, negotiating budget reconciliation instructions, and I had a heart attack.

Until that day, I had seldom had to take prescription drugs. Since that day, I take five or six. I take a drug to lower my blood pressure. I take a drug to thin my blood. I take all kinds of drugs so that I don't have a repeat of the heart attack that I had 13 months ago.

Now, I am not 65, so I am not covered by Medicare. I am in the standard Federal health benefit plan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And it does have a prescription drug benefit that partially pays for those drugs. But if I were to be over 65, which we have some Members of this body that are, I would have to be a part of Medicare and I would have an option under the current law to participate in Medicare part D, the prescription drug benefit program.

Now, when my friends on the other side were in the majority for 40 years, from 1954 to 1994, many of them sincerely, consciously wanted prescription drug benefits for Medicare. For whatever reason, it never quite happened. When the Republicans became the majority in 1994 and took over in 1995, it took us a while, we didn't get it done right away, but 3 years ago, we did pass a prescription drug benefit for part D, and it kicked in in the last Congress.

It is voluntary. Seniors that don't want to participate don't have to. Approximately 90 percent of the seniors that are eligible, we are led to believe, have chosen some plan for a prescription drug benefit.

Now, there are various plans. There are approximately 100 plans. These plans, some of them are very comprehensive. Some are very specific. Some are national, and some are regional. The long and the short of it is that every senior citizen in this country that wants a prescription drug benefit that is covered by Medicare can get one, and about 90 percent have chosen some plan; and of that, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent seem very, very satisfied.

The average cost in monthly premium is $22 a month. Twenty-two dollars a month. There are some plans, I am told, that have zero premiums; you don't have to pay to participate. Within those plans, over 4,400 drugs are covered. In some of these plans, generic drugs are free. In some of these plans, the donut hole does not exist.

So through diversity and market competition, we have created a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens in America that seems to be working very, very well.

Now, my friends on the Democrat side, the new majority, have come in, and they have got this bill up today. They want the government to negotiate prescription drug prices. On the surface, that may seem like a good idea. In reality, it would be a terrible idea. Who is going to do better than market forces with thousands and thousands of people and hundreds of plans and millions of people choosing whether to participate in this plan or that plan? What government bureaucrat, even somebody as smart and distinguished as the current Secretary of HHS, Secretary Levitt, who is going to do better than that?

Now, this concept that the government can negotiate a better price is simply not true. The CBO has come out and said it is not true, various think tanks have come out and said it is not true. But if you think it might be true, think of the products for which the government is the only purchaser and ask yourself, do we get the absolute best price?

There are not many products that the government is the only purchaser, but there are some. Aircraft carriers. There is not much demand for an aircraft carrier in the private market, so the U.S. Government is the only purchaser of aircraft carriers. An average cost of an aircraft carrier right now, I think, is about $5 billion. Now, we get a very quality product. The USS Reagan is the epitome of an aircraft carrier. But I don't believe we could say that we buy it at the absolute rock bottom price.

Now, we may not want to when it comes to some of our military equipment. We may not want to get the absolute best price. We may want to get the absolute best product, and so we are willing to pay a premium for that.

But there is really no way that a person in the Federal Government, or a group of people in the Federal Government, is going to replicate the thousands and thousands of market forces that are in play today.

So of all the ideas that my friends in the new majority have brought forward in their first 100 hours, I would respectfully say this has got to be the worst one. And I don't mean that in a mean way.

We have a program, Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, that is working. The people that can participate are choosing wisely. The premiums are coming down. The cost is coming down. It covers over 4,400 drugs. It is working.

As they say in many parts of our country, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So I would respectfully urge the body later today to defeat this program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. This bill reduces access to drugs, creates a massive new pricing bureaucracy, slows access to drugs, and disrupts a

program that works. Let me restate--this program works. Beneficiary premiums are 42 percent lower than expected, overall costs are 30 percent lower than anticipated, and more importantly, seniors like what they are getting. Beneficiary satisfaction with their drug benefit is 80 percent or higher. So if it works, why break it?

Upon reading H.R. 4 there are some things that I know, some things that I don't know, and some things that I fear to be the case. Here's what I know. I know that there's a prescription drug benefit available in this country for 43 million Medicare beneficiaries. Of those folks, 90 percent now have some form of drug coverage.

I know that premiums are now down to around $22 per month for those that choose to enroll in this new benefit. And that's lower than last year because competition continues to drive the premiums down.

I know that beneficiaries like their new drug benefit. I know that beneficiaries are getting the drugs of their choice at the pharmacies of their choice, all at low costs. And I'm told, sometimes at zero cost for some drugs if they choose generics. Should I say that again? That's zero costs for some drugs. Here's a question--how does the government negotiate a lower price than zero?

H.R. 4 will not produce any savings. Why do I say that? The Congressional Budget Office has stated multiple times the federal government can not get lower prices than those currently achieved through competition. CBO must also know, what I know, and that is competition works.

Here's what else I know--H.R. 4 requires the government to negotiate prices that may be charged for drugs. But what else does H.R. 4 do? That's hard to tell because H.R. 4 doesn't say much more. Is the bill just poorly drafted or is it intentionally silent about the multitude of beneficiary and pharmacy protections in the current drug program that could be eliminated?

Upon reading H.R. 4, I do not know if plans will be able to offer the same wide array of drug choices as under the current program. I do not know if our seniors are protected from being stripped down to just one or two drugs offered from the many they may now choose from to best suit their health needs. I do not know if there are protections in place to assure access to robust pharmacy networks, and I do not know if pharmacy reimbursement associated with dispensing drugs could be limited, eliminated, or otherwise restricted.

What I fear is that H.R. 4's silence on these very important questions means that such beneficiary and pharmacy protections have not been considered. What I fear is the effect H.R. 4 may have on beneficiary access to drugs and pharmacies. Unfortunately, there have been no hearings or mark-ups to discuss and debate these important issues.

And even with knowing that H.R. 4 produces no savings, that beneficiaries overwhelmingly like this benefit, that the benefit works, that pharmacies are participating, and that premiums and overall costs are down, Democrats--led by Speaker Pelosi--feel compelled to blindly undermine this program with no legislative record to back up their claims. I am saddened. I am sad today for America's seniors because H.R. 4 serves no purpose other than a political one. We should not be playing politics with our seniors' access to drugs and pharmacies. We should be encouraging more seniors to enroll in this benefit, not tear it apart. Sadly, that is not what the Democrats have chosen to do in their first 100 hours of power.

And for what? We know from the experiences in other countries that government mandated drug formularies and interference in drug pricing leads to substantially less drug innovation and rationing of access to the new medicines that do come to market. Under the current program, a senior can choose a plan that will provide access to new drugs that slow heart disease, ease pain, keep families together longer, cure disease, and provide a longer and higher quality of life. In other countries with government run prescription drug plans citizens must wait years for new therapies. That's if the government chooses to provide the drug at all, just ask the cancer patients in the United Kingdom who waited years for the new breakthrough drug Herceptin to be covered.

How big and slow will this Big Government Pricing bureaucracy be? It's hard to tell with no hearings. With over 4,000 drugs, different economic conditions every year, new drugs entering the market all the time, and incredibly complicated questions about how this would work, the Pelosi plan will create a bureaucratic nightmare, but more importantly will endanger access to life improving and lifesaving medications and therapies. If you are as frustrated as I am about the unfairness of how the government pays physicians under Medicare, be prepared for more frustration on getting this political pricing scheme to work.

What about the effect of H.R. 4 on taxpayers receiving health coverage through private insurance or other federal purchasers? The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a 2000 report entitled Expanding Access to Federal Prices Could Cause Other Price Changes that this type of system could raise drug prices for non- governmental purchasers. So according to the GAO, government negotiation in Medicare could lead to higher insurance costs for people with an employer sponsored health plan, a labor union plan, or even an individual insurance policy. Yet the Democrats have not held one hearing on this bill.

I ask what we are doing here today. Research firm after research firm has shown that large majorities of beneficiaries have a positive view of the prescription drug benefit. That is probably what is galling the Democrat leadership. A Republican Congress and President has passed and worked hard to administer a very popular program.

Within 100 hours the Democrat leadership has reneged on its campaign statement of bipartisanship, reneged on their campaign statement of open and considered legislative process, flip-flopped from a position of non-interference that they held in numerous bills, made hollow their statement of supporting an innovation agenda, and again shown their penchant for favoring Big Government mediocrity over choice, competition and accountability.

I was here for Contract with America. Those bills we passed with the Contract had hearings with many witnesses, Committee mark-ups and amendments, and opportunities for amendments on the floor. Who is hurt by lack of process on H.R. 4? Beneficiaries. Taxpayers. Pharmacists. Everyone. Without hearings on H.R. 4, without opportunity to develop solutions to concerns and understand the consequences of our actions, everyone loses. Particularly seniors.

In Speaker Pelosi's district there are over 81,000 Medicare beneficiaries and 103 pharmacies. How many hearings have there been to consider whether there are any beneficiary and pharmacy protections under H.R. 4? Zero.

Let's build that out a little more. The total number of Medicare beneficiaries represented by Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee is 5.4 million and there are 6800 pharmacies.

The total number of Medicare beneficiaries represented by Congress is close to 43 million. There are over 53,000 pharmacies. The consequences of this legislation are potentially grave and yet there has been absolutely no process given to determine how it would affect these important constituencies.

I don't mind an open discussion on the new Medicare drug benefit. We have had hearings on the benefit when I was the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I like the fact that the Energy and Commerce Committee plans to hold more hearings this year. It gives me an opportunity to tout the program's successes. Seniors are seeing real savings and the cost of the program continues to decrease thanks to choice and competition. What I don't like is the purely political exercise we are being put through today that will jeopardize the access to needed drugs that the 63,000 beneficiaries in my district currently enjoy. I urge all members to oppose this process and oppose this ill conceived piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it may seem like the November elections took place ages ago, but the sentiments that created new majorities in the House and Senate are still strong.

The American people spoke loud and clear on November 7. Together, Republicans and Democrats and independents from across this great Nation voted for change. They voted to end the cycle of corruption, pay to play, and junkets.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic majority is fulfilling the pledge we made to the voters. We are going to clean up Washington, D.C. We are going to give the people their House back.

Two years ago my friends on the other side of the aisle brought forward a rules package that, in my opinion, did not go nearly far enough in upholding the highest ethical standards. Today we offer a package that is based on real change. Members of Congress are elected to serve the American people, not their own individual private interests. And I am proud to say that today, this House of Representatives will enact a reform package that ends the culture of corruption once and for all. The days of the K Street project are over. No longer will Members of this House be able to dictate to any private entity the hiring or firing of anyone based on their political affiliation.

This rules package prohibits Members of Congress from traveling on corporate jets. My constituents in Massachusetts don't have the opportunity to get cheap travel on corporate jets and neither should Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this rules package also changes the way Members of Congress and staff can travel for official business. I strongly believe that overseas trips and other travel can be important tools to helping Members of Congress understand complex domestic and international issues.

But the days of lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets will be relics of the past. The actions this package takes are simple and straightforward: no more junkets, no more gifts from lobbyists, no more travel on corporate jets.

This rules package is comprehensive, and it is historic. We are going to change the way this place is run, and we are going to change the way people look at the Congress. The American people don't want to pick up their morning newspapers and read about golf junkets to St. Andrews. They don't want to hear stories about how their Congressman or Congresswoman was wined and dined with $100 steak dinners.

Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. These are commonsense items that should have been dealt with years ago. The time has come to do what is right, to hold Members of this House to the highest ethical standards.

With the election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker in the history of the United States, Democrats are ushering in a new era and putting an end to the culture of corruption. We are changing the tone in Washington, and we are changing the way we conduct business.

Now, I know full well that the ethical problems of the past were not limited to one side of the aisle, and the solutions to those problems can and should come from both Democrats and Republicans. I know that many of my Republican friends agree that change is needed, and they wish that their leadership in the past would have moved forward on some of these changes. I look forward to working closely with them in the weeks and the months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the American people demand, and they deserve, a higher standard of conduct from their elected officials. Today, we are raising the bar for how Members of the 110th Congress will carry out their duties and do their jobs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from California, whom I have a lot of respect for, there is a big difference between what his leadership proposed in terms of higher ethical standards and what is being proposed here today. I have got to say to the gentleman that we include a little bit more than just banning lobbyists from the locker rooms. They are banned

from the locker rooms in this bill, but there is a heck of a lot more.

I am in the middle of my statement. I would also say to the gentleman that his party has been in control for 12 years, and there has been ample opportunity to change the status quo. The gentleman's party not only embraced the status quo, but we saw a proliferation of the culture of corruption, and that is what this is a response to. In answer to the gentleman's question as to this March 1 deadline, that is to give the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ample time to put the rules and regulations and the disclosure requirements into place so that this can be an effective change.

So this is real historic change. We are going to end the culture of corruption in this Congress today. I am glad that the gentleman has said that he is going to support it. I hope that this is a bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes, for the purpose of debate, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

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

Let me just educate the gentleman that the change that he is asking for requires a statutory change. Today we are dealing with the House rules. I will assure the gentleman and his constituents in Nebraska and people all over the United States who agree with him that we will have the opportunity to do that. We will go through House Administration and you will have the opportunity to do that. We will hopefully have a unanimous vote on that.

I am also happy to hear the gentleman and others on the other side of the aisle all of a sudden speak in favor of ethics reform and real change and ending the culture of corruption in this House. It is amazing what an election will do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a new member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) by saying I know I am from Massachusetts, and you may think I have a funny accent and you have trouble understanding me. But let me repeat what I said before. In order to make the changes on the pension issue that he is asking for, which we all support, it requires a statutory change. And I think the staff over there will help clarify that. We are all for that.

In H.R. 4011, which Ms. Pelosi supported that you mentioned was a statute. We are going to do that.

Let me just say one other thing to the gentleman. You keep on referring to your ethics reform package as if it was some kind of this monumental change and reform.

You didn't ban the K Street Project, which has really resulted in so much outrage across the country. You had a temporary suspension on the issue of travel, and you had no ban on lobbyists' gifts.

This is real reform. We are going to end the culture of corruption.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of debate only 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).

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

Let me just say, respond to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who I am going to miss on the Rules Committee, if he thinks that the Republican reform package was meaningful reform, I will lend you my bifocals so you can read it more carefully. What ended up happening, what you ended up enacting essentially, after 12 years in the majority, was banning lobbyists from the locker room. That is all that became law.

You controlled the House of Representatives. You controlled the Congress. And you controlled the United States Senate, and that is basically all that you did.

So I would just say to the gentleman, if he wants to vote ``no'' on this, he can go right ahead and vote ``no'' on it. But that is defending the status quo.

I think the American people made it very clear during the last election that they are sick of the culture of corruption; that they want a ban on lobbyists' gifts; that they want an end to the K Street Project. They want a ban on Members using corporate jets to fly around the country. And so if you want to vote for the status quo, vote ``no'' on this. If you want to vote for real meaningful change, vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will commit to the gentleman from Arizona that we are going to enter into that exchange, and I look forward to having that statute on the floor where he can speak in favor of it and we can speak in favor of it too.

Let me also, Mr. Speaker, correct the record. The distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee said none of this ethics reform takes place for 4 months. That is true on the travel, and I clarified that earlier as to why that is the case, so we had time to implement the rules and regulations of disclosure. But everything else, I will assure him, takes place immediately.

So once this ethics package passes, I would urge my colleague from California not to go out to dinner with any of his lobbyist friends because he might be breaking the law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of debate only 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) that I appreciate his words of cooperation and bipartisanship, and I do hope, and it is my belief, that you will see a change in terms of more outreach across the aisle and more respect, quite frankly, for the opinions of every single Member of this House.

I agree this is a historic day. This is not only a historic day because we have elected the first woman Speaker of the House in the history of the United States of America, but this is also a historic day for what we are about to vote on. We are about to change the way we do business here in Washington. We are responding to what the American people made very clear on election day, that they are tired of the ethical lapses of their leaders in government; that they want an end to the culture of corruption; that they want a government that has high ethical standards; that they want Members of Congress to adhere to those high ethical standards and, if they do not, that they will be held accountable. So what we are doing today in this ethics package, I think, is also an important moment in our history.

What we are doing is we are doing what is right. We are holding the Members of this House to the very highest ethical standards. And I want to say to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that I agree with him on the pension issue. So do, I think, everybody on our side of the aisle. And we are going to address that and we are going to hopefully get a unanimous vote on that issue, because he is right on that issue. But, again, we are not dealing with that. That requires a statutory change, and today we are dealing with the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today, I will remind my colleagues again, is very important. We are ending gifts by lobbyists to Members of Congress, we are banning the use of corporate jets for Members of Congress for a minimal price so that they can take a corporate jet and fly anywhere in this country. No one else can do that, yet that has been a practice by too many Members in this Congress. That will be banned.

We will end the lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets. They will be relics of the past. This is a new day. This is a day where ethics and where integrity are going to hold a very, very high place. We are going to end the culture of corruption with this vote, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on that.

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

I thank you so much, Dr. Gingrey. It is a great pleasure to share the floor with you once again and talk about an issue that is so very, very important, not just to seniors but to all Americans. And I appreciate, as has been said, your leadership on this issue. It has been wonderful and greatly appreciated. You are serving extremely well in this area, and I appreciate that.

I also want to point out to the Speaker, as I know he knows, and to other Members of Congress that I think it is instructive to note that the individuals who have come to the floor tonight to talk about this issue are physicians or at least were physicians in their former lives. And I think that is helpful to think about, because the individuals who are charged with caring for the health of this Nation, the physicians all across this Nation understand and appreciate that the consequences of government decisions can oftentimes be huge in their effect on the ability to provide quality care for the patients of this Nation.

So we come down here tonight and talk about an issue that is of just most importance to American people and to all seniors who participate in the Medicare program, and we do so because we have been on the other side, the other end of these decisions. And when decisions are made in Washington that provide for greater control of health care by Washington, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that always, always, by and large, results in a decrease in the quality of care that is able to be provided.

I would also wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an issue that really is part of a bigger question. And the bigger question is, who is it that ought to be making fundamental personal health care decisions? And it appears that we in this body have a philosophical difference about who that ought to be. My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle tend to believe that the decisionmaking authority in those personal health care decisions ought to rest with patients and with physicians, that that is where those decisions ought to be. And I know that my colleagues who are here this evening would concur with that, because we know how difficult it is when somebody else, especially a nonmedical person, is making those kinds of decisions and it most often adversely affects the health care of that patient. So we believe as a matter of principle that patients and physicians ought to be making health care decisions, including which medication to utilize, because patients and physicians are the ones that know best which medication that ought to be utilized.

Our good friends on the other side of the aisle it appears believe as a matter of principle that government ought to be making those decisions, that government bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats who may or may not have any fundamental knowledge about, in this instance, personal health care issues, that government ought to be making those decisions.

So I think it is important for people to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that that really is one of the fundamental principles that we are talking about here: Who ought to be making health care decisions? Should it be patients and physicians, or should it be the government?

My good friend mentioned that this was a solution in search of a problem, as I had said before, and it really is. And so when you have an issue like that, I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to look at why is it that the Democrat majority is even attempting to solve this problem that I would suggest doesn't exist? And I would use as rationale for the fact that there is no problem to solve so many issues that have been brought up here on the floor already and in this debate.

The cost of the benefit to seniors all across this Nation in 2006 are 30 percent lower, 30 percent lower, $13 billion lower in 2006 than were projected. The projected costs over 10 years are down over 21 percent which equals $197 billion. The premiums are down over 40 percent over that that was projected. And in fact, if you think about the last time that the majority party, the now majority party tried to effect this program, one of their proposals was to mandate, was to dictate, was to make certain, was to guarantee that the premium per month for each and every senior would be $35, $35 a month. They wanted to make certain that it would be absolutely that amount and not a penny less. And in fact, what we have seen is that the current premium per month is about $22 or $23.

So if the other side had had its ways 2 years ago, 3 years ago, when this was adopted, seniors all across this Nation would be paying $12 to $13 a month more, more on top of the premium that they are already paying, if the other side had had their way. So I think it is important to think about and to appreciate what they have had in mind all along. Why they want to do that is beyond me, but I would suggest to you that it has something to do with whom they want to be in control of these health care decisions.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, looking at this issue, that it really is a solution in search of a problem. The Medicare beneficiaries all across this Nation, over 80 percent of them are pleased with this program, are happy with the program, believe that it helps them greatly in caring for their health. And that is in a program that has over 90 percent of those who are eligible to participate involved. So 80 percent of those participating are

pleased with it. So you have got to ask, why? What kind of problem are we trying to solve?

It is also important, I think, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, to ask the question, if the program is working so well, why is it working so well? And as has already been mentioned, there is this big kind of proposal that is being put forward now that would say that the government ought to be able to negotiate, that nobody is negotiating drug prices. Well, in fact, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, the plans themselves right now are negotiating and negotiating extremely well. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the kind of savings that we have already seen in just a year's history of the program. Plans are negotiating with both pharmaceutical companies and with pharmacists, and, in fact, that is what is resulting in the decrease in premiums that seniors all across this Nation are seeing. So the system is truly working extremely well in spite of all the naysayers on the other side.

I want to bring up again what happens when the government gets involved, and my good friend has a poster down there about government- negotiated prices on certain drugs and the actual cost. And the numbers are striking. They truly are. And the reason that it is important to look at what happens when the government gets involved with a negotiation is to remember what negotiators have to be able to do. The individual doing the negotiating has to, in this instance, be able to say to the drug company: If you won't meet my price, then I am not going to put your drug on the formulary, on the list of drugs that are available for patients. However, when the government is doing all the negotiating, what will happen is that they will say: If you don't meet my price, you won't be able to have your drug on this formulary, and the consequence of that is that your drug will not be available to seniors or physicians who are trying to make those personal health care decisions. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be fewer drugs available. Fewer drugs available. That is what happens when the government gets involved in the process. So the price may be lower for a period of time. I do not believe that is the case, as we have had good examples and quotes from very learned individuals in the economic system that will tell you that the government cannot dictate a lower price in this instance, but what certainly will happen is that there will be fewer drugs available.

Somebody may say that is just conjecture; that is just somebody dreaming about what might happen. But if we look at a program that the government did affect relatively recently and see what happened, we can see exactly by example what happens when the government gets involved. And the program I would cite is a program called the Vaccine for Children's program, and, Mr. Speaker, folks all across this Nation may remember that there was a very robust vaccine industry in our country not too long ago, in fact, about 12 or 13 years ago, and then the government got a bright idea and said, oh, but the price for those vaccines is a little too high. In some instances they believed it was a lot too high. So instead of working on how to assist individuals who didn't have the resources with which to purchase those vaccines, what the government did was come in and say, all right, you can only charge this amount of money for that vaccine. And what happened was that we saw a huge decrease in the number of companies that now provide vaccines. In fact, it went from about 30 companies that made and did research and development on vaccines, and now in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, we only have three, three, in about 12 years. That is what happens when the government gets involved in a program. Price fixing occurs and a decrease in the quality of health care that is provided occurs, and certainly a decrease in the number of medications available. Everybody across this Nation knows that that is what happened with the vaccine program. Fewer innovations, fewer new vaccines, shortages of vaccines, and less access to vaccines.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close and finally talk about, just to reiterate, the issue of who is making health care decisions. When I go home and I talk to my constituents at home, and I know that is true for Congressman Gingrey and Congressman Boustany and certainly when we see our former patients in the post office or at a restaurant or a church, I know that what they tell me is, please, please don't let the government get more involved in health care. And so I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that where health care decisions are made between the physician and the patient is something that is extremely important to men and women and children all across this Nation. And this issue is one of those issues that will strike a cord among people all across this Nation if the government gets involved and says, no, you may not have that drug, you may not have that medication because the price is too much.

So, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will tell you that if what is on the floor tomorrow is adopted, we will see a lower quality of health care, a decrease in access to health care, and I believe strongly that we will see patients across this Nation harmed. I know that is not what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do. At least I hope that is not what they want to do. But I will tell you that that will be the consequence of this bill if it passes tomorrow.

So I am very hopeful that our friends on the other side of the aisle will recognize the consequences of decisions that they are about to make and will appreciate that, indeed, what they must do, if they truly believe in looking out for the best interest of their constituents and our former patients, is to make certain that health care decisions remain in the hands of physicians and patients.

And with that, I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia once again for his leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to participate in this message tonight.