Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007.

This bill reauthorizes the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, which has made a huge impact in the stability and security of a new democracy in that country.

Since 2002, we've seen major reconstruction of schools and infrastructure in that country, as well as the birth of a democratic nation.

Reauthorization of this bill is crucial ensuring that Afghanistan continues to strengthen its government and that its people start to feel safe and secure in a nation that has been riddled with so much violence and terrorism.

H.R. 2446 also makes some important enhancements to the original Act by dealing with a rising narcotics problem related to heroine and poppy production that is threatening to endanger Afghanistan's security.

H.R. 2446 also takes a strong step towards building international diplomacy and shared responsibility in the region with our allies.

The Act expresses the sense of Congress that greater humanitarian assistance is needed in the country for civilians, that the United Nations should play a larger role in assisting the people of Afghanistan and also provides means to train military from foreign countries to share responsibility in Afghanistan.

We also set strong benchmarks for accountability in the region by requiring more reporting, a better overall strategy for Afghanistan, and by pursuing policies that foster regional cooperation.

This bill will make Afghanistan stronger and more secure while securing our own homeland in the fight against global terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the balance of time on our side.

May I inquire as to how much time I have?

May I further inquire if I am the last speaker? Is Mr. Rush prepared to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that it is appropriate that the House bring this type of legislation in this Congress before the body because gasoline prices are high, and the American public is concerned about those high prices, so it is not inappropriate to consider legislation of this type. We did it twice in the last Congress, passed an anti- price-gouging bill, once as part of a larger energy package and once as a stand-alone piece of legislation. So there is nothing inappropriate about bringing this before the body.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that it is inappropriate, at least in my opinion, to bring it before the body in the way it has been brought. The bill

that is actually before us, I don't know how many Members of the majority saw this bill as it is currently configured, but nobody in the minority saw it until approximately 2:45 p.m. yesterday afternoon.

When I left the Capitol at approximately 6:15, it had still not been noticed that it was going to be on the suspension calendar this morning. It may have been noticed and I just didn't get that notice, but I was told it was up at 10 a.m. this morning, and now it's 10:45. So those of us in the minority have a certain sense of concern that we've not been contacted. We've not been asked for our input.

We've not been allowed to negotiate, participate in any shape, form or fashion. All we've been allowed to do is come onto the floor, in my case at 10:45, and speak on the bill, and at some point in time, I assume there will be a vote on it.

I did study the bill last evening. I have lots of concerns about this bill. I don't know what ``unconscionably excessive'' means. It's not defined in statute. As far as I can tell, it's not been defined in any case law. Apparently, it's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

I also asked my staff to check around, see if there had been price- gouging lawsuits brought in the various States. Over half of the States of our great Union have price-gouging statutes on the books. We're aware of one State, in the State of Kentucky, the Kentucky Attorney General has either filed a suit or prepared to file a lawsuit in Kentucky. There may be others, but that's the only one that I know of.

There's certainly no systemic outbreak of price-gouging lawsuits being filed around the country, and if we really had pandemic price gouging going on, I think the States that have price-gouging statutes would be using their State statues. They're not doing that.

Why is that? Well, again, I'm not a trained economist, but it seems to me that what we have is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. We have not done much, if any, on the supply side for our oil situation in this country in the last 30 years; haven't built a refinery, brand new, from scratch, in almost 35 years. We've put almost every place that has any potential for new oil development off-limits. Can't drill up in ANWR, Alaska; can't drill off the coast of California; can't drill off the coast of Florida; can't drill off the coast of South Carolina, North Carolina; can't drill off a lot of portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

And funny things happen. As we've kind of sat on our supply haunches and not done anything, demand worldwide and domestically has gone up, and as demand goes up, if you don't have some ability to increase the supply, sooner or later that price is going to go up.

Now, I wasn't here to hear Mr. Stupak's opening statement, and he may not have said this, but he said yesterday in the oversight hearing the price of crude oil has dipped slightly. He doesn't understand why the price of gasoline has gone up. And all you have to do is look at the housing market in northern Virginia to get the answer to that.

I had supper last evening with my son who is working at the Department of Energy. They are living in a home that's probably 35 years old. I don't know what that home cost brand new when it was built, but a good guess would be $30-, $40,000. That price at the time was based on the cost of construction, the cost of the land, fair profit for the builder and real estate agent. So you could say the cost of that property was $30- or $40,000. Well, the people that own the home have just sold it. It wouldn't be appropriate to tell the exact selling price. My son is renting it, but it's over $700,000.

Now, is that price gouging? No. It's what the market demand for housing in northern Virginia is. It's not related to the cost of the property, it's related to the demand for housing in northern Virginia. So those folks have made a nice profit.

Well, the same thing in the oil industry. Demand for oil is going up in China, demand for oil is going up in Europe, demand for oil is going up in Asia, demand for oil is going up in the United States, and if you don't have more of it, price is going to go up. Is that price gouging? No. It is what the market requires to balance limited supply with increasing demand.

The price of gasoline in the United States 3 years ago doubled. Demand actually increased 1 percent. Now, eventually, last time prices got to about $3 a gallon demand did dip slightly, supply increased a little bit, price went back down. Right before the last election, the price in Texas for gasoline got down to about $1.90 a gallon. Since my friends on the other side have won the election and taken over, the price has gone back up to what we see today. Is it their fault? It is not their fault right now. It's not Bobby Rush's fault, it's not Bart Stupak's fault, it's not John Dingell's fault. It's not Ed Markey's fault over there in the corner. Although I'm tempted to blame Mr. Markey, but it wouldn't be fair.

Demand has gone up and supply has not gone up and the price has gone up, and it's going to keep going up until we do something, both on the demand side and the supply side.

So, is this the worst bill that's ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives? No, it's not. Is it the best bill that's ever been on the floor? No, it's not. You know, I think it is a flawed bill. The definitions are not there. The mitigating factors are not there.

We would be well-served, since it's on the Suspension Calendar, to defeat it, get 140, 150 votes, then go back to committee, have some hearings, try to develop a little bipartisanship, bring a different bill to the floor, and probably pass with an overwhelming margin.

So I'm going to vote against this bill, and I'm going to ask that all my colleagues take a serious look at it, vote against it, so we can figure out the right thing to do. And the next time we bring an energy package, don't just bring something that's symbolic to the floor. Let's bring a bill that helps build new refineries. Let's bring a bill that actually increases the supply. Yes, let's bring a bill that might do something to limit demand. I think the time has come to look at some of those bills seriously.

Let's bring a package that actually might do something, other than rhetorical, to bring gasoline prices in the United States back down to levels that we think are more appropriate.

I don't like to pay 3 dollars or more for gas anymore than our constituents do, but this legislation won't do a single thing to keep market prices down or address the reasons gas prices are rising. What it will do is threaten legitimate businesses with huge fines and hard- working people with long jail terms. Furthermore, the bill could quite possibly lead to price controls and 1970s-style gas lines. I oppose the legislation before us today for substantive reasons, as well as based on the process--or lack of process--that has brought this bill to the Floor.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want the American public to understand how the legislative process has broken down in this case. In light of your unprecedented intent to remove the minority's right to a motion to recommit, it should not surprise anyone in this chamber that the bill before us has bypassed the Committee of jurisdiction--The Energy and Commerce Committee--to come straight to the House Floor. The Committee did not hold a legislative hearing. The Committee did not hold a mark up. The only opportunity my Committee Members had to seek input from the Federal regulators with expertise on legislation was yesterday afternoon during an oversight hearing--a hearing in which the Democratic majority did not even have a witness testify who represents the independent gas stations. It's really too bad their voice was not heard, because the little Mom-and-Pop gas store owner who sells 60 percent of the gas in the U.S. could go to jail for up to 10 years under this bill if they price their gas wrong.

On top of my concern for the absence of certain witnesses at our oversight hearing, a new version of this bill was circulated only yesterday afternoon. That's right: we have had less than 24 hours to review the changes, but we are supposed to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I thought things were going to be fair in this Congress, but I seem to have been mistaken.

The Administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy Against this bill. It indicates that it will lead to gas shortages and do nothing to help consumers.

On the substance of this legislation, I have serious concerns that this won't have the intended effect. The Federal Trade Commission is the expert on competition policy and has conducted several studies and investigations of the oil and gas markets markets. In its most recent investigation, the FTC studied each

segment of the industry after Hurricane Katrina. Guess what they found? No evidence of price manipulation at the refining level. To the contrary, they found a competitive market. Transportation sector? No evidence of manipulation. Inventory levels? Again, no evidence of manipulation. Gasoline futures? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker, no evidence of manipulation.

What the FTC found was a competitive market that responded to the Katrina crisis by changing their priorities and shipping products to the areas that needed it. The FTC has studied the issue repeatedly, and has not found any evidence of price increases that were not a result of a change in market conditions or other factors that may affect the price.

It may surprise Members that the FTC is opposed to a Federal price gouging law. Why? Because they're concerned that it could do more harm to consumers than good. The Secretary of the Department of Energy opposes it, as well as the National Association of Convenience Stores, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society of Independent Gas Marketers of America, the American Petroleum Institute, and just about every economist who knows that price controls harm consumers when they cause shortages. What is better, higher-priced gas, or no gas at all?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sponsor of this bill that people who take unfair advantage of others should be punished. But we already have laws on the books to address those issues at the Federal and state level. Now we are going to add a Federal standard to the patchwork of state laws for gouging--a term which has no legal or economic meaning. I believe it is unnecessary and fear it will return us to the 1970s gas shortages. No retailer will want to supply the market at a higher price and risk being fined millions and going to jail for years. And what wholesaler will risk $150 million in fines and possible jail time if they raise their price more than a competitor?

Mr. Speaker, I know many here would like to go home to their constituents over Memorial Day recess with a gas price gouging bill rather than address substantive Federal Energy Policy that might actually address the factors causing gasoline prices to rise. Republicans were able to pass many energy-related bills when we were in the Majority, though Democrats in the House and Senate voted against almost every piece of legislation that would have increased our domestic energy supply.

I can understand a visitor to California might suspect they are being gouged at the pump when they fill up in San Francisco for upwards of $4 a gallon, but that is just a result of the Federal, State and Local taxes and other state fuel requirements. If something is broken, Mr. Speaker, it is not the free market. This Congress must act to increase domestic supply of gasoline, not enact feel-good legislation that is ill-conceived and ineffective.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have on this side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Congressman Murphy of Pennsylvania, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, Congressman Burgess of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers. I think we have 2 minutes.

One minute remaining. Then we have one speaker left.

I yield the balance of the time on the minority side to the distinguished minority whip, who is a member of the committee, on leave, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

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

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill on substance and in adamant opposition of the process.

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the substance of this bill. It has two distinguished cosponsors, one in the majority party, one in the minority party. The underlying substance is eminently fair, and we are not going to ask for a rollcall vote. If it passes on a voice vote, so be it.

But having said that, I want to say in the strongest possible terms how extremely disappointed, and I mean extremely disappointed, that we have a bill that is in two committees of jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the bill had not even been introduced, had not even been introduced until this morning. There was no bill number.

Now, when you put a bill on the Suspension Calendar, theoretically the majority party, the chairman or chairmen or chairwomen ask the ranking member of the minority party if there is any problem with the bill. If there is not, then they approve it. Then the Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the House calls the minority leader of the House and says, ``We want to put this bill on the Suspension Calendar.'' And you do it.

Now, we have a bill before us that was not even introduced until the House convened this morning. There has been no hearing, there is no record, there has been no phone call. Chairman Dingell did not call me yesterday, he did not call me this morning. I don't know if Chairman Rangel called Ranking Member McCrery. I do know that Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer did not call John Boehner.

So we are now in a situation, we have a little extra time, let's introduce a bill and pass it in the next 30 minutes. We did not do that when we were in the majority.

Now, this is a good bill. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Johnson deserve accolades for seeing a flaw in the current Social Security law, the Medicare law, and rectifying it. That is not the issue.

The new majority campaigned on a platform of fairness and openness. Is this fair? Is this open?

This happens to be a good bill. What if it weren't? What if it weren't?

The only two Members that really know anything about it are the two cosponsors, and thankfully they are both decent, honorable men, and we have read the substance of the bill and it is okay. But this is not the way the House of Representatives should be run. It is just wrong, W-R- O-N-G, wrong.

So I support the substance of the bill, but I am adamantly opposed to the process. I hope this thing goes on a voice vote. If it is a rollcall vote, I am going to vote ``present'' and express, when I see Mr. Dingell, in the strongest possible terms how upset I am about the process.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Did he call Mr. McCrery?

Then I stand corrected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the minority sponsor of this piece of legislation, the Honorable Sam Johnson of Plano, Texas.

No, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume briefly.

We support the underlying concept of the bill, and, as I said, if it passes on a voice vote, we won't ask for a roll call vote.

I do stand by what I said, though, in terms of the committee process. We've got two bills on the suspension calendar from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Neither bill had a legislative hearing. Neither bill had a markup at subcommittee or full committee. Neither bill was introduced in its current form as of 2:45 yesterday afternoon. Both bills are on the floor today on the suspension calendar. That does call into question whether we even need an Energy and Commerce Committee, given that everything apparently comes to the floor without going through the committee process.

But we support the underlying principles of this bill, and we certainly support the patriotism and courage of the two sponsors.

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

Mr. Chairman, with the Cardoza amendment, the Congress expresses its support for efforts like the $1 billion interoperability program to be implemented by NTIA.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing inability of our first responders to communicate with each other in times of emergency. This public safety interoperability problem has gone on for far too long, which is why the Energy and Commerce Committee is playing a stronger leadership role in setting the policy direction through its communications jurisdiction.

I will put the rest of my statement in the Record, Mr. Chairman. But we do support the Cardoza amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding some time.

Mr. Chairman, with the Cardoza amendment, the Congress expresses its support for efforts like the $1 billion interoperability program to be implemented by the NTIA. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing inability of our first responders to communicate with each other in times of emergency. This public safety interoperability problem has gone on far too long, which is why the Energy and Commerce Committee is playing a stronger leadership role in setting the policy direction through its communications jurisdiction.

Our Committee authored a section in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that set a final date for the DTV transition that will transfer 24 MHz of spectrum to public safety. To help first responders communicate on this spectrum efficiently, the DTV legislation also established the $1 billion Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant program to leverage NTIA's extensive telecommunications and spectrum policy expertise.

To improve interoperability throughout the Nation, Congress directed the NTIA to identify and fund forward-looking, spectrum-efficient, cost-effective and timely solutions. That program was designed to be separate from other programs, with its own criteria, and its own metrics for success. Until our existing, disparate public safety networks can communicate together, we will not truly be equipped to respond to a natural or man-made disaster.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the work of the Energy and Commerce Committee in making certain improvements to H.R. 493. In particular, I note the inclusion of information on embryos, fetuses, and adopted children. I further note a clear statement that nothing affects claims processing and quality improvement activities and related items. Finally, I am happy that there is a provision for covered entities already subject to regulations governing personally identifiable health information.

The primary author of the House bill, Ms. Slaughter, has stated:

``GINA prohibits group health plans and health insurers

from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging

that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic

predisposition to develop a disease in the future.

Furthermore, it bars employers from using an individual's

genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement

or promotion decisions.''

That is the focus of this legislation. I expect the relevant Federal agencies will interpret this bill in light of the primary focus. GINA is a very complicated bill with a number of definitions capable of counterproductive readings. We have tried to improve the bill to reduce these problems. In the spirit of these efforts to improve the legislation I support its passage from the House and look forward to work in Conference.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 5, 2007, I was unable to fly to Washington, DC. As a result, I missed votes on this day. I ask that my statement be placed in the appropriate part of the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following rollcall votes, had I been present.

Monday, March 5, 2007: ``Yea'' on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 390-0 (Roll No. 119). H.R. 995: To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.

``Yea'' on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 390-0 (Roll No. 120). H.R. 497: To authorize the Marion Park Project, a committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation, to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia, and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion.

I want to thank Congressman Graves for his gracious allocation of time.

I rise in strong support for H.R. 584, a bill to name the Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C., as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building. I am proud to be the primary Republican sponsor of this legislation, and I believe that all the Republicans in the Texas delegation have also cosponsored this particular piece of legislation.

I commend Mr. Green of Texas for being the primary sponsor of the overall bill and his tireless work on this. He has worked on it for a number of years now, and it is good to see that it has finally come to fruition.

I never had the privilege to meet the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson. I wish I had. I am a great admirer of his in many ways, not so much some of the policies that he pursued, but I am a great admirer of the enthusiasm and the tenacity with which he pursued those policies.

In my first campaign for Congress in 1984, I read the first Caro book, ``Path to Power,'' the first installment of that, and required all my campaign staff to read that book; because President Johnson, when he ran for Congress in the 1930s in the middle of the Depression, he made it a motto of his that he would literally search out the voters of his congressional district one by one, whether they were in the fields plowing or in the stores working or at church socials or wherever. He went where the people were to spread his message.

And I took that to heart, and numerous times traveled hundreds of miles to meet with small groups and in a few cases one or two people just so I could have an option. On one occasion, I went and met with a gentleman at 6 a.m. because he didn't think I would show up at 6 a.m., and so he said meet him at 6 a.m. when he opened his business. And I was there at 5:45. On another occasion, a banker in Houston couldn't see me. I waited in his waiting room from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 8:30 that evening, and finally, in exasperation, he agreed to see me and, before I left, had given me a substantial contribution and agreed to let me use his name on my steering committee. Those were both things that I got from the way President Johnson ran his campaign.

In terms of his policies, the two bills that he supported that became law that had the greatest impact on my life were the creation of the White House Fellows program in 1965. I was a White House Fellow in 1981 and 1982. That is a program that President Johnson established to bring young Americans to Washington for a year to work in the Cabinet agencies, and then either go back to their areas or to stay in Washington. And so far, there have been about, I believe, 700 young Americans have gone through that program. Texans like Henry Cisneros come to mind, a former White House Fellow. Colin Powell is a former White House Fellow, Senator Sam Brownback in the other body is a former White House Fellow. But it had a tremendous impact on my life and led me for the first time to think about trying to become a Member of this body.

Another program that President Johnson established was the Head Start program. And in the summer I believe of 1964 or 1965, when that program was established in Waco, Texas, my mother became a Head Start assistant at Brooke Avenue Elementary School in Waco, Texas, at a time when my family was in need of financial income, and so she decided to work part time outside the home and went to work at a Head Start program; and, because of that, became a school secretary and spent her career in education. The impact on me that summer was, I was the oldest child, and it forced me to learn to cook, learn to clean and learn to take care of my three younger brothers and sisters.

I will never forget the day that my father showed up for lunch and I had been trying to make gravy. To this day, that gravy is still in the pan because it would not come out of the pan when you turned it upside down. That was my one and only attempt to learn how to make gravy. And my father said, ``From now on, son, if you need to make gravy, ask your mother to do it or ask me to do it, but nobody can eat what you are trying to make.'' So thanks to President Johnson, I never had to learn to cook, because that was one of the few times I even attempted it.

So I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. President Johnson was a great President, he was a great American, and he was obviously a great Texan. And there are still people in Washington today that are effective in the political arena. People that come to mind that are still active in Washington, Jack Valenti who was for many years the president of the Motion Picture Association of America who came to Washington with President Johnson, and an attorney named Harry McPherson who is still active in his practice, he, too, was involved with the President. Some of the former members of this body, the late Jake Pickle, the late Jack Brooks, were LBJ proteges. And then former Governor of Texas, John Connelly, a good friend of mine who helped me politically when I was getting started, is another protege of Lyndon Johnson.

So I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill with Congressman Green. I think it is right to honor President Johnson with this building. He wanted to be known as the ``educational president'' and did many, many things to bring forth public education for our citizens.

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal and Congressman Inslee for expediting consideration of this specific piece of legislation.

As I have pointed out earlier on the House floor after notification of Congressman Norwood's passing, he wrote me a letter the last day he was in Washington before he flew home to Georgia, and this particular piece of legislation was the primary issue in that letter. It is very, very heartwarming, and I am very grateful that the majority would move this piece of legislation as quickly as they have done. I want to thank them sincerely for doing that.

As has been pointed out, this piece of legislation will be called the Charlie Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, and it is in honor of Congressman Norwood, the late Congressman from the Tenth District of Georgia.

There are over 78,000 Americans who need kidney transplants. The average wait is over 4 years. Paired donation can create greater access to kidney transplants. A paired donation consists of a transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor who are matched with another similar pair so as to enable two transplants that would otherwise not occur.

The legislation before us today clarifies the ability to perform paired transplantations through the National Organ Transplant Act, or NOTA. This legislation clarifies that paired donations are not considered a valuable consideration.

This legislation has received the strong support of all the major transplant organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplantation, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, the Cedars Sinai Health Systems, Johns Hopkins, and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

As a consequence of the legislation that Congressman Norwood and Congressman Inslee have crafted, we assume that at least an additional 2,000 organ transplants a year will occur. That is truly a gift of living that will keep on giving for many, many years to come.

This legislation, unfortunately, will be the last of many great pieces of legislation that Congressman Norwood helped to pass when he was a colleague of ours in this body. He was a true statesman and sincerely a warm, personal friend of mine. I will miss him greatly.

Before I yield back, I want to tell a story about Charlie and then read something into the Record.

Congressman Norwood always considered himself to be very prepared. He was always ready for almost any contingency.

The night that we voted the Medicare Modernization Act part D prescription drug benefit on this floor will be a time that will long be remembered because it was such a close vote and it took so long to get it passed. Charlie and myself and three other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side had been a part of a group to craft an alternative program for the part D prescription drug benefit. Some of our alternative program was in the final legislation, but not all of it. As a consequence, Charlie was listed as a ``lean no.'' He was in reality a ``hard no,'' but he listed himself as a ``lean no.''

As we all know, when the climactic vote occurred, there weren't enough yeses on the board to pass it. So I went to one of the senior leaders of the majority party, I am not going to say which one, but I went to one of the senior leaders and I said, ``I think we can get Charlie Norwood to vote for this bill.'' They said, ``No, you're not going to get Charlie to vote for the bill.'' I said, ``I think we can, if you'll talk to him.''

So I went to Charlie and I said, ``Would you talk?'' Charlie said, ``I don't want to talk to anybody. I'm going to vote against the bill.''

I went back and forth. I finally arranged a meeting back in the Republican cloakroom where Charlie would discuss this particular piece of legislation.

Now, he had been a no, no, no, no, no for the last 2 weeks. So when I finally got the two parties together, Norwood immediately pulled out a list from his pocket. Now, he is deceased, so whatever the statute of limitations is has expired. And this Congressman, who had been a lean no, lean no, lean no, had a list of 10 things, 10, that if the senior leadership on the Republican side would consider, he would consider voting for the bill. Ten.

Obviously, that discussion didn't go too far, so he ended up voting no. But he was prepared, and he had a list of things.

Now, in that same sense of being prepared, Mr. Inslee has already put into the Record Congressman Norwood's statement on this bill. Isn't that amazing? I am going to read it into the Record. This is the floor statement in support of this bill by the late Congressman Charlie Norwood of the 10th District of Georgia.

``Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also offer a sincere thank you to Ranking Member Barton, Chairman Dingell and Mr. Inslee for all of their help moving this bill. Committee staff, including Katherine Martin, John Ford and Peter Goodloe should be acknowledged for their aid as well. A special thank you to Nick Shipley with Mr. Inslee's office who worked with J.P. from my staff from day one as a tireless advocate to get this bill into law.

``It has been said that common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are and doing things as they ought to be done. Well, let me tell you how things were being done. For years, people missed or were delayed in an opportunity to have a life-saving kidney transplant simply because a member of the executive branch couldn't grasp the

true intent of the National Organ Transplant Act's valuable consideration clause. The valuable consideration clause was meant to outlaw the buying and selling of organs, which everyone agrees is proper.

``Now, there are two types of transplant donors, living and cadaveric, or deceased. As a lung transplant recipient, I benefited from the latter, but in the case of the first, a friend or a relative wanting to spare their loved ones from death or dialysis graciously offers to give up one of their kidneys. Regardless of the method, both patient and donor must be biologically compatible.

``In recent years doctors discovered that by using the simple database methods that we use in our everyday lives and business, a paired donation could take place with these living donors.

``In the process of a kidney paired donor transplant, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor is matched with another such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur.

``Now, I'm just an old country dentist, but isn't this just common sense? I want to give to someone, but I'm not compatible, but I can give to another patient. Their willing, yet also incompatible, friend can give to my loved one. As a result, two people live; two more slots are opened on the list for even more transplants to take place. Common sense, Mr. Speaker.

``However, instead of every single transplant center undertaking this commonsense approach, some folks were denied the chance to be cross- matched and, instead, their loved one suffered and even died while awaiting a transplant.

``73,652. That is roughly the number, Mr. Speaker, of people waiting for a kidney transplant. I can't imagine looking at any of those people and telling them `I am sorry, some bureaucrat 10 years ago inspired fear around the simple process to save you today, so you will have to languish on the list and hope for the best.'

``I will tell you what: That is hogwash. Times have changed. Paired donation is saving lives today and will save even more once we get this bill done. H.R. 710 has the support of every major transplant organization, from the United Network for Organ Sharing, who will manage the national list, to the surgeons who will perform the transplants, to the patient advocates to the hospitals.

``In fact, a study published in the Journal of Transplantation predicts a 14 percent increase in the live kidney donor transplants performed each year if paired donation were allowed. Moreover, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save $220,000 in dialysis costs.

``In fact, Johns Hopkins just did a five-way paired donation where five people were saved instead of being put on the waiting list. Now imagine the good a national list will do. Thousands will be saved through simple common sense. Paired donation is the way things ought to be done.

``How often can we stand in this well on this floor and know what we are doing will save the government money, improve patient quality of life and save lives? Not too often, Mr. Speaker. I can testify to that.

``What the bureaucracy has failed to correct, this Congress will now step up and take care of, unfortunately for all of those who have not been able to benefit, not a minute too soon.

``I yield back the balance of my time.''

That is the floor statement of the late Congressman Norwood on a bill that, at the time he prepared this, he wasn't sure would get to the floor.

Yet because of his tenacity and preparedness and the willingness of Mr. Dingell and Mr. Inslee and Mr. Pallone and Speaker Pelosi, the bill is on the floor. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I do intend to ask for a rollcall vote and let us leave a living legacy of life for the late Congressman Charlie Norwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Before I yield to Dr. Gingrey, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his excellent leadership and his willingness to expedite this process. It is because of John Dingell that this bill is on the floor this afternoon. We on the minority are very appreciative of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman John Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Jack Kingston from Savannah.

How much time do I have remaining?

I, unfortunately, can only yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes to tell one last Charlie Norwood story.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, since we have painted Charlie Norwood to be such a saint today, I have got to kind of get a little bit truer picture of him.

In the Energy Policy Act debate of 2005, there was a provision in the bill that was not controversial in the overall part of the bill, but it was very controversial in certain areas of the country. One of those areas was in Charlie's area of the southeast.

I had been working with him all through the debate to try to get him to help me forge a compromise on this particular issue, and he agreed that the compromise was the best public policy, but it wasn't the policy that his region supported. So he was in a difficult position of agreeing with me, the chairman, on what the good public policy was, but knowing that that was not a vote that he would be supported in taking for his region.

I went round and round with him about how to convince him to support this particular item in the bill, and he just flat couldn't do it. But I finally got him to agree that, at the critical moment, he would not be there to vote against it. In other words, he would be absent, meeting a constituent or something, and he just couldn't be there. He and I agreed on this, and our staffs had worked it out so that when the time came to vote, Mr. Norwood would not vote ``no,'' which would make me happy, but he wouldn't vote ``yes'' either, which would have made me even happier. He just wouldn't vote.

So, sure enough, the critical moment came, and the vote occurred. True to his word, Charlie Norwood was not around, but as soon as I gaveled the vote, he burst into the room, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, could I be recorded. I said, no, the vote has already expired. He said, what kind of hogwash is this and just raised holy cane, purely for theatrical purposes, but you know, the point had been made.

So his constituency felt justified in his support, and I felt justified in he didn't vote against me, and yet he had upstaged his chairman, but in some cases, that was Charlie Norwood.

We rise in support of this bill. It does save money. It saves $30 million or $40 million the first year and I think $400 million to $500 million over the 10-year scoring period. So we are going to work with the majority to find a way to put these savings to use so, once again, Congressman Norwood not only is doing a good thing, providing a gift to the living, but this piece of legislation, if it becomes law, will also save the taxpayers money.

I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 556 the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthening Transparency Act of 2007. I want more foreign investment in America, not less, but I do not want the kind that threatens our security. CFIUS exists to make the distinction, and we need to know that it's doing a good job.

We don't automatically fear foreign investors here in America. The money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth and opportunity here at home. I just want to ensure the investment we attract does not jeopardize national security.

H.R. 556 provides consistent criteria with appropriate discretion and will improve the review process without impairing our ability to attract significant and needed foreign investment.

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the legislation before us. Importantly, it provides for mandatory review of foreign-government controlled transactions and any transaction that affects national security. Additionally, it provides clear and consistent review criteria for all other commercial investments, it adds the Secretary of Energy to the Committee, and it makes the Secretary of Commerce a co-vice chair of the Committee. Most important, it adds transparency in the process for Congressional oversight and establishes new reporting requirements many of us feel are essential to this process.

I support H.R. 556 and urge my colleagues to approve the measure.

Madam Speaker, I attended the Charlie Norwood funeral today in Augusta, Georgia. He was a veteran of Vietnam. I think it is ironic that because he was a veteran, we saw at the beginning of the funeral the honor guard walk in carrying the flag of the United States Army and the flag of the United States and all the battle ribbons on that flag, that as 70 to 80 of the Members of this body were showing respect to Charlie and his family, we were having this debate on another war.

The resolution before us is a sham resolution. It is nonbinding. I have voted on resolutions of war and peace in my time in this Congress. I voted on the first gulf war resolution back in the early nineties when we thought that there might be tens of thousands of body bags coming back with our troops in them. I voted on the first resolution supporting our President in this war after 9/11. Remember 9/11? We had more American citizens killed in one day in the Twin Towers and in the Pentagon than we have had in all the years that our troops have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't demean their sacrifice. I have attended three funerals in my hometown of young men who have been killed in the line of duty in this current war.

This nonbinding resolution tries to have it both ways. It says at the first, in part A, we support the troops and in part B, we don't support our President's decision, the Commander in Chief, to send these reinforcements. Well, if it's nonbinding, why have the debate? I think it's commendable that we are having this debate. I wish it would have had some meat on it. Let's put a real resolution on the floor. But the Republicans weren't offered an alternative, so we have to vote for or against a nonbinding resolution that has it both ways in the resolution. I don't think that is very becoming to this Congress.

But when the time comes, I am going to vote ``no'' because I believe as Thomas Jefferson believed, and if you go to his monument not too far from here and look up around the ceiling, Thomas Jefferson says, ``I have sworn upon the eternal altar of God unending opposition to all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.'' This Islamic terrorist campaign is a direct attack on our democracy. It is a direct attack on our tolerance. We need to support our President. We need to vote against this nonbinding resolution. And then if we want to have a real resolution, let's bring it to the floor and have that debate.

I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63. This nonbinding resolution serves only to degrade and demoralize the troops currently engaged in forward operations and those additional troops President Bush has called upon. This is not a call for a new direction in Iraq nor is this a call for a new course of action. This is a political distraction and a call to our enemies around the world by showing a lack of resolve and fostering the idea of uncertainty towards support and funding for the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have charged that the previous policy did not work, the new policy will not work, and yet amongst all this rhetoric my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have a constructive alternative to put forth. Instead they offer legislation that if enacted would fuel the call for setting timelines and the withdrawal of our troops. To leave before the job is finished would leave our country in a weaker position globally and leave the Middle East without any hope for democracy to ever take hold. The extremists that oppose us are against freedom and we are right to be engaged in the fight for democracy and tolerance. The stakes are high and our enemies know this. They are not going to quit, but if we pass this resolution it will be the first step in signaling that we will. It is right to support the President as he lays out his plan for securing Iraq and is in our national interest.

The necessary framework for democracy has been established and the labor of our brave troops has produced many measurable results. A constitution was written by the Iraqis resulting in democratic elections where nearly 12.5 million people braved the threat of violence to cast their votes. A fair criminal trial was held for Saddam Hussein, the country's former dictator, who denied that right to his own people. I urge my colleagues to let the Iraqis lead and give democracy a chance. Establishing a secure Iraq, a thriving democracy and a noticeable reduction in crime will pave the way for numerous infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable achievements in the reconstruction effort include the building of more than 5,000 schools, the training of more then 60,000 teachers, the training and equipping of 323,000 police and military forces, the vaccination of 98 percent of Iraqi children, the ability of more than 7 million people to access phone service, the repair of nearly all of Iraq's railway stations, the restoration of electricity output and oil production to near prewar levels and the increased availability of clean water and sanitation. The milestones that have been reached are a testament to why we should not abandon our presence in Iraq. Progress is being made and we must continue to support our troops and Iraq's democratic government.

The President's call for more troops is a decision not made in haste. It is made with careful consideration and thoughtful advice from his commanders both at home and in the field. The additional troops will work with Iraqis to solve serious challenges and to find ways to curb future outbreaks of violence. To achieve success in combating those serious challenges it is important that America stands with Iraq so they can defend their own soil, create a sound economy and govern themselves effectively. The President understands the consequences of failure in Iraq, something this resolution proves the Democrats do not comprehend.

I have been to the funerals of men and women from my district that lost their lives in this war. I have pinned medals on the chests of the brave men and women from my district who returned home safely. Visiting with families at home and troops in Iraq I have seen first hand the effects this war has on Americans. This resolution serves to discredit the memories of fallen soldiers, the efforts of those still fighting, and to embolden our enemies. If we remember, our enemies attacked us on September 11th and instead of living in fear and leaving ourselves open to more attacks we chose to take the fight to them. In the time since, there has not been another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. That is a testament to the fight our men and women are waging to protect the freedoms we so richly enjoy. I remain committed to supporting our forces serving abroad and ensuring they have the funding they need to complete their mission.

Some of my colleagues misguidedly stand to dismiss our efforts in Iraq. I stand with the resolve of former President Thomas Jefferson who said, ``I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'' We must not stand divided and turn our backs on those fighting for democracy where tyranny threatens to reign. We must be steadfast and support them in every way we can. We can not let the difficulty of the task diminish our support for the troops and the cause for which they are so diligently fighting. We must not let this frivolous resolution pass.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a part of a letter. It is dated February 8, 2007. It is to myself. It is from Congressman Norwood. It is the last official correspondence that I received from him. It says:

``Dear Joe.

``When you receive this letter, you will know of my return to Georgia after my decision to forego further medical treatment in the Washington, D.C., area for my ongoing battle with non-small-cell cancer. Needless to say, I hope things turn out for the best.

``I expect to be unavailable for my duties for the foreseeable future. I do, however, expect my staff to continue working on several issues, even if I can't be there in person.

``I will have my staff working on the Living Organ Kidney Donation Clarification Act (H.R. 710). This bipartisan, bicameral bill addresses the issue of paired transplantation, which is a way to solve the dilemma faced by people who want to become living organ donors for a family member or friend, but are unable to do so because they are biologically incompatible. In the process of kidney-paired donor transplants, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor is matched with another such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur. This bill is widely supported, has no known opposition, doesn't cost a dime, will save Medicare money, and will save thousands of lives. I urge you to work with Mr. Inslee, Chairman Dingell, and my staff to move this important bill forward.''

I have checked with Chairman Dingell. He has assured me that he is prepared to move the bill if it is as he says it is. Knowing Charlie, always telling the truth, it is. So hopefully, very soon on the floor of this body, we will have the Charlie Norwood Living Organ Kidney Donation Clarification Act.

There are so many stories, but I want to tell one Norwood story. Charlie asked me and now my wife, then my girlfriend, Terri, to go down to the Masters Golf Tournament. I am not golfer and so I discouraged him from asking me. He said you may not like it but Terri will.

So we got to go down to the tournament, and on the first day we went to the tournament, Charlie was telling me how plugged in he was with all the folks at the Masters and how many people he knew and really he was really a major figure out there.

So we pulled up to the driveway to go up to the main clubhouse that you have seen on TV, and the guard at the gate said, May I help you? He said, I am Congressman Norwood, and I have got Congressman Barton of Texas, and we want to go up to the clubhouse. The guard said, Well, Congressman, you are not on the list. He said, I am not on the list? And the guard said, No, Congressman, you are not. So I started giving Charlie a hard time from the backseat.

I said, Charlie, I thought you were a big player around here; you cannot even get up to the clubhouse. So Norwood started giving me a hard time, and I started hoorahing the guard, and he said, Wait a minute; he said you are a Congressman from Texas? And I said, Yes, sir. He said, Congressman Norwood, you park right up there by the clubhouse.

So, for that one day, Charlie Norwood had a better parking spot than Tiger Woods or Arnold Palmer or any of the members of the Masters golf course.

He is in heaven now and my guess is he has got the best parking spot in heaven, too. God bless you, Charlie Norwood, and God bless you, Gloria, and God bless all your family members. You will dearly, dearly be missed.

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of TEXAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus, in the small amount of time that I have, on one of the principal components of this particular piece of legislation. That is the apparent attempt to say that some of these leases that were granted in 1997 and 1998 were somehow flawed, and that there were mistakes made and things were covered up and the oil companies tried to renegotiate some of these leases to get a sweetheart deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law 104-58. It was entitled the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, Royalty Relief Act. It was the intent of this act to offer royalty relief, royalty suspension in certain tracts in the Gulf of Mexico in order to create an incentive to get the oil companies, both large and small, to actually bid on these leases, to spend money to promote them, develop them and hopefully find some commercial production.

There was no mistake about it. It was the intention of the act to sign some leases that did not have royalty or had a lesser royalty than was commonly in place. Now, remember at this point in time oil was selling for $10 to $15 a barrel, and there was no production, there was no exploration, or very little exploration going on.

Section 303 of that act established a new bidding system that allowed the Secretary of the Interior to offer tracts with royalty suspensions for a period, volume or value that the Secretary so determines. Now, section 304 of that ACT went on and says that all tracts, a-l-l, all tracts that were off within 5 years of the date of enactment in deepwater; that is, water that is at least 200 meters deep, had to be offered under a new bidding system, had to be, not could be, might be, had to be.

This new bidding system had a royalty clause in it, but the royalty clause was based on volume of production and is also based on the depth of the water. The deeper the water was, the less the volume was that you had to produce before you triggered a royalty.

In other words, if you were in the deepest water in the gulf that was leased, you could produce up to 87 million barrels of oil without paying a royalty. That is a lot of oil, 87 million barrels is a lot of oil.

So we, those of us that were in the Congress, in the mid-1990s, passed a Royalty Relief Act, it is in the title. It says, if you will put your hard-earned dollars and go out and bid on these leases, and you win one of those leases, if it is in the deepwater, we are putting in a bidding system, and under this bidding system you may have to pay a royalty based on how much you produce but you won't pay a royalty based on the price.

Now, we only offered these leases for, I think, 2 years, 571 were actually bid on. Of those, about half, I think, were accepted. Of those, we discovered we have current production in 19 of them, 19.

Now, after the fact, we can come back here in 2007, when prices are at $50 a barrel, and say that was a bad deal 12 years ago, we should not have done it. But 12 years ago oil was at $10 a barrel. We had no domestic exploration going on. We passed a specific act of Congress that said give this royalty relief. Today we are, in hindsight, saying take it away. That is wrong, and I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the 2006 campaign we were promised civility and ``playing by the rules, following regular order.'' Today, like the

rest of the 110th Congress so far, we face the extreme opposite: government by martial law and bumper sticker. Mr. Speaker, your bumper stickers worked in the campaign but they are not governance worthy of the American people and it won't take time for the people to understand the difference.

The last major energy legislation enacted by Congress was the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was a long and heavy lift. We had countless hours of hearings before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Committee mark-up seemed to take forever because of the many amendments offered by Members on both sides of the aisle.

And then there was the exhausting conference with the Senate. Many provisions were negotiated in excruciating detail. What did it give us? One of the most important, historic, and consequential pieces of comprehensive legislation in history. It has already directly accounted for several liquefied gas facilities, new nuclear plant announcements, vastly improved electricity transmission reliability, and impressive capital investment in solar, wind, and other renewables.

Did the minority party participation slow things down? You bet it did, but it also improved the product. I am proud of the 70 Democrat votes on final passage but especially of one vote, that of our new chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan. We earned each other's support for the final product.

Today, by contrast, we have a bumper sticker: ``Stick it to Big Oil.'' That's a cute bumper sticker, but, please, Mr. Speaker, don't use it to govern with because you are only hurting the very people who sent us all here.

In 2004 we agreed that the JOBS Act was important for keeping American manufacturing and production here at home in the face of an increasingly competitive global market. Today we're saying, ``all that is still true--let's keep the JOBS Act, except we will carve out one industry for which we don't want American production, American manufacturing, American jobs: the energy industry. No, we'd rather tip the scales so that global companies with American operations in the energy industry will take their jobs and production off shore where they are more welcome: say Nigeria, or Iran, or Venezuela.

Last year virtually all Members recognized the disturbing shortage of U.S. based refining capacity. We had various ideas to address it and virtually every Member of this body voted for one or the other. But driving refineries off shore was on nobody's agenda. Why is it on your's?

Meanwhile, as off-shore energy prices spike as a direct, inevitable result, so do consumer prices for commuters, and soccer moms, and grandmothers struggling to pay home heating.

These prices matter to our constituents in places like Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and other States.

Mr. Speaker, why must you turn every bumper sticker into more taxes and more spending? Why throw $14 billion into the Department of Energy to produce energy? In its entire history with all its billions, how much electricity, how much transportation fuel has DOE really created?

Let's step back, see this H.R. 6 bumper sticker for what it really is and have the courage to say, ``The bumper sticker was for last year, now it's time to govern and to put the people of America first.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.

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 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the full committee, Mr. Upton of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Deal of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 2 minutes to one of our most distinguished Members, Dr. Price, for 2 minutes.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Congresswoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, a member of the committee, Mr. Terry, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to put into the Record the Democrat vote on the motion to recommit to H.R. 4680, rollcall 356 back in 2000. This was a Democrat motion to recommit to the Republican drug benefit that later went to the Senate and was not acted upon. 205, and I assume that was the total number of Democrats in the House, all 205 Democrats voted for it, including Mr. Dingell, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Rangel, and every member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who is currently serving who was in the body at that time. This was a recommit motion by Mr. Stark of California, and I am going to read what it says:

``Noninterference by the Secretary. In administering the prescription medicine benefit program established under this part, the Secretary may not:

One, require a particular formulary, institute a price structure for benefits or in any way ration benefits;

Two, interfere in any way with negotiations between benefit administrators and medicine manufacturers or wholesalers; or

Three, otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription medicine benefit using private benefit administrators, except as is required to guarantee coverage of the defined benefit.''

This is exactly the opposite to the bill that is currently before us, exactly the opposite.

Back in 2000, every Democrat currently in the House at that time, I think, or at least 205, voted for it, including all of our senior members who are leading the fight 180 degrees opposite this today.

Democrats That Voted in Favor of Representative Stark's ``Non-

Interference'' Provision in 2000

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Allen

Andrews

Baca

Baird

Baldacci

Baldwin

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Bentsen

Berkley

Berman

Berry

Bishop

Bagojevich

Blumenauer

Bonior

Borski

Boswell

Boucher

Boyd

Brady (PA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OR)

Capps

Capuano

Cardin

Carson

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Condit

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Cramer

Crowley

Cummings

Danner

Davis (FL)

Davis (IL)

DeFazio

Delahunt

DeLauro

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doyle

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Etheridge

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Forbes

Ford

Frank (MA)

Frost

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green (TX)

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hastings (FL)

Hill (IN)

Hilliard

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Hoeffel

Holden

Holt

Hoyer

Inslee

Jackson (IL)

Jackson-Lee (TX)

Jefferson

John

Johnson, E. B.

Jones (OH)

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy

Kildee

Kilpatrick

Kind (WI)

Kleczka

Klink

Kucinich

LaFalce

Lampson

Lantos

Larson

Lee

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lipinski

Lofgren

Lowey

Lucas (KY)

Luther

Maloney (CT)

Maloney (NY)

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy (MO)

McCarthy (NY)

McDermott

McGovern

McIntyre

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek (FL)

Meeks (NY)

Menendez

Millender-McDonald

Miller, George

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moore

Moran (VA)

Murtha

Nadler

Napolitano

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Owens

Pallone

Pascrell

Pastor

Payne

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Phelps

Pickett

Pomeroy

Price (NC)

Rahall

Rangel

Reyes

Rivers

Rodriguez

Roemer

Rothman

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanchez

Sanders

Sandlin

Sawyer

Schakowsky

Scott

Sherman

Shows

Sisisky

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (WA)

Snyder

Spratt

Stabenow

Stark

Stenholm

Strickland

Stupak

Tanner

Tauscher

Taylor (MS)

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Thurman

Tierney

Towns

Turner

Udall (CO)

Udall (NM)

Velazquez

Visclosky

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weiner

Wexler

Weygand

Wise

Woolsey

Wu

Wynn

Representative Stark included this language in his motion

to recommit on H.R. 4680 (roll call vote 356):

Section 1860(b)--NONINTERFERENCE BY THE SECRETARY

In administering the prescription medicine benefit program

established under this part, the Secretary may not B (1)

require a particular formulary, institute a price structure

for benefits, or in any way ration benefits; (2) interfere in

any way with negotiations between benefit administrators and

medicine manufacturers, or wholesalers; or (3) otherwise

interfere with the competitive nature of providing a

prescription medicine benefit using private benefit

administrators, except as is required to guarantee coverage

of the defined benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the balance of the time amongst the many people on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and also a member of the Veterans Committee, Mr. Stearns of Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 1 minute just to reply to Mr. Waxman.

The Congressional Budget Office, as far as I know, is not in the pocket of the drug companies. They say there are going to be no savings to this. The Heritage Foundation, which is admittedly conservative, but I don't think they are in the pocket of the drug companies, says there are going to be no savings. The Veterans Affairs Administration, which is the executive branch part of the Federal Government that is currently operated by President Bush, is opposed to this. They don't think there are going to be any savings. You can go to Wal-Mart right now, whether you are in Medicare or not, and get any number of generic drugs for, I think, a fee of $3 a month. Some of the plans that are out there in the marketplace give generic drugs away. Some of the plans that seniors can choose from have zero premiums. The average premium is $22.

I just think it is flat wrong to think that the Federal Government is going to negotiate a lower price than a competitive marketplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a distinguished congressman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from West Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguish gentleman from Arizona, a former chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee who is currently on leave from the committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) be allowed to control the minority time for the Ways and Means Committee, which I believe is 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close for the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Majority Leader's clock is, whether we are at the end of the 100-hour period or the beginning or the middle. I do know that I have been very confused by this process.

I understand the effort to bring the minimum wage bill back to the floor. Our new majority, for whatever purpose, didn't feel like they got a fair shake on that issue in the last several Congresses. So I can understand that.

The stem cell bill we voted on yesterday is the identical bill from the last Congress, with the exception of the change in the dates and the reversal of the names from Castle-DeGette to DeGette-Castle. I understand that. I even voted with the new majority on that one.

But on this one I am puzzled. We have a program that is working. We have a program that has 75 percent approval of the group we are trying to help, which is higher than most of our approvals in our congressional districts and certainly higher than most of our reelection rates. We have a program that the new majority even admits isn't going to really save any money. We certainly have an issue that there have been no hearings on and there have been no amendments made in order.

In fact, we don't even have a Rules Committee yet established. If my good friend Mr. Dingell said, Mr. Barton, I will support you on that amendment, there is no place to amend it. We are operating under martial law, and maybe they did it this way in the war between the States; I don't know. I can tell you that in the 12 years that I was in the majority, we always had a Rules Committee you could go to. Now, maybe you didn't get your amendment made in order, but at least you could go to it. So this one is a puzzlement to me.

Now, we know that the President has promised to veto this if it should somehow get through the Senate in its current form and come to his desk.

In all likelihood it will never come out of the Senate, so this as far as it is going to get. So maybe that is what this is all about is just a political exercise. And I know, and everybody in this Chamber knows, when it comes to the vote, the new majority is going to win. They should win. They won an election. They have a right to bring issues and they have a right to win some. But that doesn't mean it is right and that it is going to be a win for the American people.

I hope that once we get this foolishness out of the way, that Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell and myself and Mr. McCrery can work together as the leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on a bipartisan basis, actually hold some hearings. If there is really something wrong with the current Medicare part D prescription drug benefit program, let's work together to fix it. But if there is really not anything wrong with it, and it ain't broke, there will be no need to fix it.

So I hope that we vote this down today. I am not myopic, though. I can count how many Democrat votes there are and how many Republican votes. So it will probably pass, and it will probably go to the Senate and it will probably die there, which will be a nice benign death. And then we can get back to being responsible.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the bill fails today and that the Democrat 100-hour political program fizzles, and then in the next 2 weeks we get down to the serious, bipartisan business of working together for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I very certainly am.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to Mr. Ross if he thought I was being rude to him. I wasn't.

We only have 5 minutes on motions to recommit, and I wanted the Members to hear the motion and hopefully others that may be following the proceedings, because it is very short and it is also very simple.

We have already heard from the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan, that the bill before us is not going to save any money in its current form. Having said that, since it is not going to save money, it could still do irreparable harm, if in these negotiations, if they were ever to occur, the Secretary, in trying to save money, would have to look at the following areas:

First, he would have to look at some of the very expensive drugs that serve small segments of our population like the HIV drugs and some of those type of drugs. We don't want that to happen, so we explicitly preclude that.

He would also have to look at access. The VA program that has been touted as an alternative to Medicare part D, in spite of the fact that over a third of the veterans choose Medicare part D, it achieves many of its savings, number one, by restricting the formulary; and, number two, requiring that most of the drugs be delivered via mail order. In other words, you don't have that local pharmacy point of access. So this motion to recommit explicitly says you have to maintain that access.

It also says you can't impact groups like the veterans or any recognizable group that may have a group plan, because we don't want to squeeze, if you start trying to save money somewhere else, you may squeeze them and raise their prices.

So this is a very straightforward motion to recommit. We simply say if you are going to give the Secretary of HHS all this negotiating authority, let's be careful that, in doing that, we don't hurt all these other segments of our population.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of political rhetoric today. That is not surprising because the Democrats have made this a political debate and not a debate on substance. That is unfortunate because this issue is too important to too many Americans.

There has been a lot of discussion about what this bill does and does not do; the truth of the matter is we don't really know. This bill has been the subject of no hearings; we have heard from no witnesses; we have had no subcommittee or full committee markups; we have had no opportunity to debate or even offer amendments. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee didn't even have its first meeting until 2 days ago.

Mr. Speaker we do know something about the successes of Medicare part D. We know that tens of millions of our seniors have access to prescription drug coverage for the first time; we know that tens of millions more are saving money when they buy prescription drugs. We also know that seniors can choose from competing plans, have access to the approximately 4300 prescription drugs available, filled at pharmacies of their choice.

Proponents of H.R. 4 claim that it will have no impact on beneficiaries' access to pharmacies or to the range of drugs they may take. If that is true then they should all vote in favor of the Motion to Recommit.

The motion is simple but critically necessary. The motion guarantees seniors access to all drugs that are available under the current program; the motion ensures that seniors suffering from cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and other debilitating diseases get the drugs they need. The motion guarantees that our seniors have access to new and innovative treatments as they become available.

The motion ensures that the government cannot limit or restrict beneficiary's access to their local pharmacies; seniors should be able to get their prescriptions filled at pharmacies of their choice.

Finally, the motion ensures that the legislation will not end up increasing the cost of drugs for veterans or any other group of Americans.

I urge all Members to vote in favor of preserving access to drugs and local pharmacies. Vote in favor of the Motion to Recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. McCrery) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, do I have any additional time?

Mr. Speaker, I would yield that to Mr. Stearns of Florida, 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair. To have one of our distinguished parliamentarians is a positive on the body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican sponsor of the bill, Mr. Castle, at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the distinguished Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

What would I need to do to yield the time I am controlling to Mr. Castle?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Point of order.

Mr. Speaker, is the rule that we are operating under coming out of the Rules Committee?

Another point of order.

How many times----

Point of order. My point of order is, the distinguished Speaker when he was in the minority numerous times made points of order that were----

Point of order. Then the distinguished Speaker was out of order in the past.

I thank Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette. I also want to compliment the Speaker on his management of time. He has done an excellent job. I will say it is better to have him up there so he can't debate us down here. So I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives, I have been in the Congress for 22 years. Until the last Congress, my pro-life voting record, over 21 years, was 100 percent. One hundred percent. In the last Congress, I did vote for what was then the Castle-DeGette bill. I also voted to override the President's veto. So coming into this Congress, my pro-life voting record is 100 percent, minus two votes. Now, in anybody's book, that has got to be an A-plus.

I am going to support what is now DeGette-Castle because I am pro- life, and I strongly support the pro-life effort in every way. But having said that, when it comes to research and when it comes to stem cell research, I think Members on both sides and of all various persuasions in which your view is the pro-life or pro-choice issues, unless you think we shouldn't do research at all, and there are certainly Americans who do not believe it is proper to do medical research, or unless you don't think we should do medical research at all in embryos or in stem cells, then it is appropriate to have a debate about this bill.

Now, I hope the amniotic research works. I had a baby son, Jack, 16 months ago. My wife, Terry, and I saved his cord blood. It is stored right now in California, and if he ever needs it, it is there.

I hope that the adult stem cell work that is being done is successful. I am disappointed that so far the embryonic stem cell research has not yielded the results that we hope, but it is that one time that works that we are hoping for.

The Chicago Cubs have not been in the World Series, since when, 1916? But every spring they start out that they are going to get to the World Series this year. We don't know which researcher will find the cure to Parkinson's or the cure to Alzheimer's, and it may be through adult stem cell or amniotic stem cell, or it might be through embryonic.

Now, the bill before us would take the approximately 7,000 to 8,000 embryos a year that are disposed of as medical waste and make it possible for the custodian, the parent, the custodian of those embryos to donate them for medical research purposes that is federally funded. Seven to eight thousand.

To me, as a pro-life Congressman for over 22 years, the choice is: Medical research, medical waste; which is the most pro-life? Medical research that might, might find a cure for my mother's Alzheimer's or my brother's liver cancer that he died of, or medical waste that literally goes in the trash bin? That is what is happening now. Why cannot we make it possible to pursue cord blood, amniotic, adult stem cell, and embryonic stem cell?

So I respectfully, for those Members yet to cast their vote on this issue, please vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, stem cell legislation has been debated on this floor before, and I welcome the opportunity to again speak in support of legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research.

In August of 2001, the President issued his policy on federally funded stem cell research. President Bush announced that for the first time Federal research dollars would be available for research using existing stem cell lines. Originally it was believed that there were nearly 60 viable stem cell lines, however, for a variety of reasons, that number was reduced to 22. Furthermore, many of those 22 lines cannot practically be used for research. This legislation will help create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow for science and medicine to progress.

In order to ensure that these embryonic stem cell lines are ethically derived, the legislation provides strict ethical constructs. The lines must come from embryos that have been donated, that were specifically created for fertilization treatments and would otherwise be discarded. Those donating the embryos must provide written consent and they may not receive financial incentives.

Understandably, this is not a simple vote for anyone on this floor. This is a vote of conscience for all members. In the 109th Congress, identical legislation was agreed to by a vote of 238 to 194 in the House and later passed the Senate by a vote of 63 to 37.

However, the House was unable to capture enough votes to override the Presidential veto this past summer, and the legislation never became law.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently defended human life and opposed all forms of abortion. I also respect the need for progress in medicine that will help protect and improve existing human lives. My decision to support this legislation puts me one vote short of a perfect, 100 percent pro-life voting record, and it was not reached carelessly. It is the product of much personal contemplation and plenty of prayer. I have lost members of my family to illnesses that stem cell research might have cured. I have concluded that I am just not ready to require that sacrifice from other families, to watch lives slip away that could be saved.

Recently, a study was issued by Wake Forest University in which the ability to reclaim embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid was demonstrated. This is an important step forward in stem cell research, and I applaud it. However, this important step should not preclude the use of other forms of stem cell research that could one day become a cure for many diseases that too many Americans suffer. The researcher of this very study has restated his support for passage of H.R. 3.

This will be one of the most difficult votes that many of us cast in this Congress. It is literally about life and death. It is about the lives and the deaths of real people, people we know and love. Regardless of our differing positions, this is an issue on which it is impossible to be insincere. I ask that we respect one another during this debate, and that we honor each other's views, especially the ones with which we differ.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1608, the ``Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers Beyond Borders Act'', also known as the SAFE WEB Act. Mr. Speaker, my Committee dealt with this issue in the 108th Congress because it is a growing problem. The issue is important because fraud perpetrated against our citizens increasingly originates or is committed outside the United States: the Federal Trade Commission reports 20 percent of the complaints it received are ``cross-border'' fraud complaints. Under current law, there is little the FTC can do to stop or prosecute a perpetrator outside the United States.

The Safe Web Act will make two significant changes to help stop the fraud and protect consumers. First, it amends the FTC Act definition of ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' to include acts or practices involving foreign commerce. Second, it allows the FTC to share information and cooperate with foreign governments to investigate and take action on fraud complaints consistent with existing law enforcement practices.

I am pleased to see that S. 1608 reflects and codifies the interagency agreement reached in 2004. We have an amendment that will make a few minor changes to S. 1608. The Amendment strikes the findings, eliminates the gift provision to the FTC, and sunsets the legislation after 7 years.

This is good consumer protection legislation and will help law enforcement agencies find and prosecute criminals outside our borders committing fraud against our citizens.

I would like to thank FTC Chairwoman Majoras as well as Jeanne Bumpus at the FTC for their efforts to help make this legislation a law.

I urge my colleagues to pass the bill so we can continue to protect consumers and prosecute criminals.