Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is the ``Hold on to Your Wallet Congress'' because they have spent 100 hours getting into the taxpayers' wallet, and as we have heard them say, they have just gotten started.

We have had no regular order, no rules. They have made it easier to raise taxes by passing a semblance of PAYGO that makes spending permanent and tax relief temporary.

They don't want recorded votes because they don't want their constituents to know what they are voting on. They have passed a 9/11 bill that our private industry tells us is going to be billions of dollars in cost to the taxpayer. We have a minimum wage bill that is going to cost billions of dollars to small businesses and also brought about the Tunagate scandal.

Yes, you know, we are seeing it on every front, an energy bill that is going to raise taxes, not make gas more affordable, student loan legislation that doesn't do one single thing to help students get into college and stay in college.

Yes, hold on to your wallet, Mr. Speaker. They are coming for it.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can appropriately dub this the Hold on to Your Wallet Congress. And today, the tax increase that is being passed is one that is being put on the energy that runs our cars and heats our homes; and tomorrow, who knows? But hold on to your wallet, America, because they are coming for it.

Some of the previous speakers have said that they are trying to depict this bill as something that would be repealing subsidies to Big Oil and redirecting money to alternative energy. Both are false. Those are false premises. Even The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times don't agree with this bill. They know it is going to raise prices at the pump, punish domestic production, run up the cost of energy on manufactured goods, all of it being done at a time when we are supposed to be weaning off foreign sources of oil. And this bill is going to do exactly the opposite.

There is nothing in the bill that would guarantee that the increased revenues would be spent on alternative energy. While a new reserve is created, it does not have one single enforcement mechanism. In other words, the increased revenues could, in reality, be directed to any Federal discretionary expenditure without penalty, growing the government.

It is the classic bait and switch. It is an energy tax on hardworking Americans with no guarantees for alternative energy.

I will not be a part of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6.

If the gentleman would yield, I would like to refer back to something that he was saying on the alternative fuels development, draw attention to that. I know that the gentleman from Texas will agree with me, just as the gentleman from New Mexico has.

What we are doing is recapping much of what took place in the Energy Act of 2005, and in that act, the $8 billion that was set aside and designated for alternative fuels development, the reason that was done was because the Republican House leadership knew and the Senate agreed and the President agreed that beginning some alternative fuels development was very, very important. It was something that needed to be done. Great ideas needed to be brought to the table.

I think what the gentleman is saying is so very significant, and I want to highlight it because I appreciate so much the fact that you are bringing it forward, that whether you are looking at the blended fuels and ethanol and biodiesel, all of that is coming on line.

If I understood the gentleman correctly, what we have seen over the past 18 months is generation capacity of these alternative fuels, fossil-based fuels and blends. What we are seeing is hundreds of millions of gallons available at the retail level every year. This will increase every year.

We will hear more this evening from our dear colleague from Maryland about developments in other alternative energies and getting outside of the box and thinking outside of that paradigm. But I appreciate so much the gentleman highlighting the provisions that were there and shedding a little bit of sunlight on the statement that was made today over and over and over on the floor of this House, an untruth, whether they are misinformed or misdirected or misguided or whatever, that clean energy policy would start today. Then what did they do when they voted for the energy act that we passed in 2005, because we got that out of Energy and Commerce Committee on a bipartisan vote.

We took significant steps at that point in time, and, as the gentleman is seeing, results are being yielded and brought forth.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so very much. The gentleman from Texas, being an accountant and understanding what is at stake when you talk about changing contracts and changing rates of taxation, it is so wise to point these things out for our colleagues tonight, and we appreciate that, and also the expertise in the energy industry that our colleague from New Mexico holds.

I have dubbed this the ``hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress,'' and indeed I believe it is. To the Americans who are watching us, you just better be hanging on to that wallet, because if you are not, they are coming to a pocket near you to get every single penny out of it that they can wring out of it. They are off in their 100 hours to quite a start.

As we talk about the energy bill tonight, the gentleman from New Mexico was recapping what this means and the impact this is going to have on the American people, and he is exactly right. The bill that the Democrats in the House passed today does not put one more penny toward alternative energy development or exploration or alternative fuels. It doesn't do it.

It will not make gas cheaper. Contrary to what you heard on the floor of the House today, this is not going to make gas at the pump cheaper.

It will not increase U.S. production. As a matter of fact, it is going to make it more difficult to produce fuels and gas and heating oil in the United States.

Now, the foreign gas production companies and foreign refineries probably love the action that was taken here today, because they saw House Democrats saying we don't have enough faith, we don't trust the U.S. oil industry enough; but we are going to put our attention on foreign investment and foreign oil, because indeed what they did was make us less dependent on U.S. oil and more dependent on foreign sources of oil.

The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, three publications that very seldom agree, all agreed today that the bill, H.R. 6, the Democrat bill, was not a wise move for the people of this great country.

So to the gentleman from Texas, and Madam Speaker, I will commend to you that indeed this is the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress. As we have heard in this first 100 hours that our friends across the aisle have been in charge of

this majority, we have had no regular order. We have no rules. They did go in and make a change to make it easier to raise taxes.

As I said, hold on to that wallet because they are coming for it. They actually made it easier to raise taxes on the American people.

They even want to get into committees and not record votes so that you will not know what they are doing in the Rules Committee and in some of the committees so that you can play both sides of the aisle on these issues.

In addition to the energy bill that was passed today, they also passed a bill dealing with student loans. It is not going to do one single thing to help get one student into college. They were dealing with interest rates after, after, you leave college.

They decided they wanted to rework a Medicare prescription drug plan. Well, do you know what? Over 75 percent of the seniors are satisfied with the prescription drug plan; and here they go, they are wanting to make that one more expensive.

With the 9/11 Commission, we heard from our transportation industry, from companies large and small that transport goods and merchandise that it would be a cost of billions and billions of dollars to the American public.

The minimum wage bill that brought about Tunagate, my goodness, $5 billion to $7 billion worth of added cost to the small businesses, plus our fiasco with Tunagate that was carried forth by the gentlelady from California.

So it has been an interesting 100 hours. They did pass their energy bill today; and as has been said, it is not a bill, Madam Speaker, that is going to make gas cheaper at the pump, more affordable, or make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. It will make it more dependent on foreign oil.

I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, the media just loves to give names to the different Congresses. I think that they should call this one the Hold-Onto-Your-Wallet Congress, because they are definitely coming to a wallet near you and it is going to be yours. During their first 100 hours, which is seeming to never end, they are spending billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money on, guess what, bigger government, right here in Washington. They are not sending that money back to the local communities. And today they are going to have their student loan bill up.

Here are some facts. They would have you believe that we have slashed student loans and it is just not true.

Here is a fact. In a shocking display of hypocrisy, Democrat leaders are paying for their $6 billion plus plan with some of the same lender subsidy cuts crafted by congressional Republicans in the 109th Congress.

Here is another fact. House Republicans have committed a record $13 billion for Pell Grants, a two-thirds increase over the past decade. Go look it up.

Another fact. To the tune of more than $4 billion over 5 years, congressional Republicans established the first-ever grant program for high-achieving Pell students in their first and second years of college.

It is a fact. Republicans have a solid record of helping students get and stay in school.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee who previously spoke. He was in the State House when I was in the State Senate there, and he has been such a leader on the issue of government accountability and government reform and openness. And the comments he made are so very, very true. And he truly does have a sense of disappointment with the way the Democrat majority has chosen to circumvent the rules process, circumvent the committee process, not record the vote and go under a shield of darkness rather than having sunlight and exposure in recorded votes. And he represents his constituents so very well, and I am delighted that he has joined us in this body. And I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his diligence in the Truth Squad and in continuing to bring truth to the floor and to talk about the issues that are before us. He is talking about the student loan bill that came before us today, and I tell you what. Listening to some of this today, I think the gentleman would agree with me, you had to wonder every once in a while what you were listening to and where they were getting this information, saying that it was going to save approximately $4,400 over the life of every loan, talking about how it was going to make college more accessible. And it was such a head scratcher because it doesn't do anything for students who are trying to get into college. It doesn't do something for the here and now. It is for the later on, after people have graduated from college.

And you know, another thing that I found to be so very interesting was the way there was no talk about things that the Republican majority had taken action on, conservative ideas, things that we had heard repeatedly from our constituents that they wanted to see happen. And I would like to highlight just a few of the steps that were taken by the Republican majority. You can go back to 1996.

I will yield.

And the gentleman is correct in that. This is for ones who have graduated and then you are earning an income and then you start to pay a loan back.

Now, the Republican philosophy, the conservative philosophy on this is, let's get more people into the classroom. Let's help people afford that. Let's allow deductions for families so that they have the opportunity to work hand in glove with their children to make a better education possible. You can go back to 1996 when the section 529 plans came in. Save for college. You, the wage earner, the taxpayer, the mom, the dad, take the responsibility for this and tackle it as a family. That is part of the American dream, working together to realize that dream.

And Mr. Speaker, I tell you what. That is something that is proactive. That is something that gives the power to the individual, not taking it away and saying hey, we are going to cloister it away in Washington, D.C. and you want to go to college, come talk to us. We don't believe in that.

Then you can look at the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, two tax credits in that. HOPE Scholarship, Lifetime Learning, reinstatement of the above-the-line deduction for interest on student loans, an exclusion for earnings accruing to education IRAs. They were later changed to be the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. There again, not giving power to the government and control to the education process over the government, but giving it to moms and dads and families and students so that they can make those.

Well, we can look at the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. The Smart Grants of up to $4,000 annually for students majoring in math, science, engineering or a foreign language critical to this great Nation's security. Smart Grants. It effectively doubled the Pell Grant for many students. It increased subsidized student loan borrowing caps for freshmen and sophomores, there again, steps that give you, the individual, the power and the control.

We can look at current student aid. We have seen such an increase in student aid over the past decade. To see the amounts that those have increased is just amazing. Our higher ed funding in total has increased.

To the gentleman from Georgia, you know, as we have stood here today and

listened to all the myths, and listened to the information that is erroneous, it has been very disappointing. I would just like to commend to our constituents who are watching tonight that they may want to go to the Education and Labor site, our ranking member, Buck McKeon's site, and look at some of the information there that the republicans.edlabor.house.gov have on there, what is the truth with the legislation that we have passed today, so that they can have a better understanding of it.

I had talked with a constituent who had thought that they were going to see enormous savings from this. They had misunderstood the rhetoric that they were hearing on the floor today and thought that they were going to be saving about $4,400 a year, not $4,400 over the life of a loan, which is incorrect, but that it would be even less than that, and for the average student it is more like $400.

So the gentleman is correct in the assessment that he is making. I appreciate that he is breaking down the interest rate chart so that our constituents do have clarity on the situation that is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. We could even call it the Big Government Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. You know, I represent about 70,000 Medicare part D beneficiaries in my district and they deserve low-cost prescription drugs and the option to choose the plans that best suit their needs.

Part D plans have produced greater than expected savings and our Medicare beneficiaries appreciate this. They are saving an average of $1,200 annually on their drug costs. Program costs are going to be about $200 billion lower than expected over the next 10 years. And repealing part D noninterference will create drug therapy restrictions found in the Department of Veterans Affairs programs.

There is a lot of talk about the Veterans Affairs and comparing that to Medicare. That is like comparing apples and oranges, because the VA is a direct provider of medical services, where Medicare part D is an insurance program for our seniors that allows them to choose to access and to control their health care.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, because this is such an important debate for us and for our constituents.

I have about 70,000 Medicare part D beneficiaries in my district, the Seventh District of Tennessee, and they do deserve low-cost prescription drugs, and they deserve the option to choose their plans. The way Medicare part D is constructed, that is what we have, the opportunity to make those choices, to have that control, to actually have a private insurance.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of conversation about the VA and veterans. I would like to point out that comparing Medicare part D and the VA drug program is like comparing apples to oranges, because the VA program is a direct provider of those medical services and part D is an insurance program that is run through private plans, so that our seniors have the options and the ability to choose, to have control over their health care.

About 40 percent of Medicare-eligible veterans enrolled in the VA health care are choosing to benefit from the Medicare drug benefit.

It's critical that we protect what seniors value most--access to quality care in their own community; affordability; and choice of their prescription drug plan and pharmacy.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the leadership, our House Republican leadership designating the time for us to be able to use today. We want to continue our discussion with the American people and put the emphasis on what has happened since we gaveled in for the 110th session of Congress.

It is going to be such an interesting Congress, we know that. There is a lot of work to do, and our constituents are depending on us to get the job done for them. We all look forward to that. We are excited about representing our constituents.

What we are not real excited about are some of the things that the majority has pushed forward and the way in which they have gone about it this week. What was to be openness, what was to be transparency, has devolved into a Rules Committee not being put into place, our regular order not being recognized, bills not going to committees, opportunities to amend those bills not being given, and it has made for quite an interesting 54 hours and 48 minutes as of this morning.

I am joined by a couple of my colleagues, and they are going to give some of their thoughts. I would like to recognize first, Mr. Davis from Tennessee, who is new to the House this year. He is a Member of the freshman class. He served in the Tennessee General Assembly, and we are so delighted that he did.

When I was in the State Senate in Tennessee, he served in the State House, and he has given to the process of open government, and to government reform and was a leader on those issues in this State.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), for some comments.

Good to share the floor with you.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I welcome his comments. He is on target, Mr. Speaker, and just as he always has been in the General Assembly of Tennessee. Government is not the solution to many problems. Government many times itself causes the problem.

We all know that when you have a situation out there that if you put government into that mix to solve that problem, you don't get a private sector or a not-for-profit solution to that problem. You get a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy that is guaranteed to grow, guaranteed to grow, because they never go back to dollar one to build that budget. They go back to what is called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting says you take what you had last year and you build on it.

I tell you what, one of my constituents the other day, they were talking about this, compounding, and compounding interest in order to build a retirement nest egg, and what a wonderful concept compounding interest is.

It came to mind, as he said, you know, that is what the liberals have been doing with that Federal budget. It is compounded spending, because every year you take what you had and you add to it, and you grow it a little more and spending always grows.

As the gentleman from Tennessee said, in their PAYGO rules, what they have done is make it easier to raise taxes without you knowing about it, without the American people knowing about it.

So the 110th Congress is going to be the hang-on-to-your-wallet Congress, because it is coming at you. They are after your wallet, and they are going to take more and more of your wallet, your money that you have earned, and they are going to give it to the government, to the bureaucrats, to solve your problems in a way you don't want. So hang on, it is coming.

But in order to get some help, we have got some great Members here on our side of the aisle who are going to be fighting for the American people every single step of the way. One of those great Members is the former lieutenant governor from the State of Oklahoma, and she joins us this year as a member of the freshman class. She has been such a stalwart for conservative ideas and for helping Oklahoma set its course toward a State that is dynamic, even developed some pretty good football players along the way, and we are absolutely delighted to have the gentlewoman from Oklahoma join us and share her thoughts on her first couple of weeks here in Washington.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma, and I thank her for the contribution and the insight that she is bringing.

One of the things that we have to realize with legislation that we pass is it is a partnership effort, whether it is the local, the State, and the Federal levels working together. And her expertise, with 16 years of State government, as a legislator, as a lieutenant governor, helping the State chart a new way forward into the 21st century, that is so vital to the work that we do to be certain that we don't gather in the power and keep it here in Washington; that we send it to the States.

And the gentlewoman speaks so eloquently of missed opportunities, of wanting to bring that expertise to bear, not only for the benefit of her constituents, but for the benefit of all Americans, to be certain that we respect this Nation, we respect this House, and that we respect the sovereignty which each and every one of us hold so very, very dear.

You know, my colleagues have mentioned some of the things that have taken place this week. And as I said at the outset, the Democrats brought forward what would be their 100-hour agenda, and they have talked about the things that they had wanted to pass. And we have heard some in the 5-minute and 1-minute presentations and the speeches on the floor that we have got some creative clock keeping going on around these parts. But, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, when I was in school in the 1950s and 1960s, they weren't teaching new math, so I just know how to do it the old way. And going by the old clock, it is 54 hours, 48 minutes, as of the time we gaveled in this morning, that had passed off the clock.

Now, the American people may be interested to know some of the things that have transpired in this 54 hours, 48 minutes. As I said, this is kind of the hang-on-to-your-wallet Congress, because it is expensive. And what we are seeing that they are doing in the first half of this 100 hours is passing legislation that our small businesses have told us, that the associations that work with many of these small businesses, the chambers, the independent business organizations have said would be crippling to businesses that create three out of every four new jobs in this country.

Now, you know, somebody may say, well, that doesn't sound that bad. You know what? When you go back to 2003 and you look at the fact that we have had nearly 7 million new jobs created since 2003, that is a lot of jobs. When you look at the fact that personal wages have increased over 9 percent in the past couple of years, that is a lot of money in the take-home paycheck. Then you see it makes a difference. Creating jobs, creating better jobs, creating 21st century jobs is so vitally important to have a robust economy that is going to work. And the body, the majority chose to pass a minimum wage bill that was an unfunded mandate on small business.

Now, I didn't come up with the total of what this is going to cost small business. I went to the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office says it is going to be $5 billion to $7 billion in unfunded mandates on small businesses to meet this one piece of legislation alone.

Now, I tell you, my constituents in Tennessee's Seventh District aren't willing to fork over another $5 billion to $7 billion out of their paychecks. They want first right of refusal on their paychecks. They don't want the Federal Government getting first right of refusal on their paychecks. The Federal Government takes too much as it is. And we all know government doesn't have a revenue problem. Goodness gracious, government has brought in more revenue than ever before in the past couple of years, and it happened because of tax reductions. Government has a spending problem, and it has a spending problem because of programs that have been put in place from the new deal, put in place from the Lyndon Johnson years, programs that have grown and grown and grown and have never been reduced. That is why we have a spending problem. And I have said many years, the bureaucracy in this town is a monument to the Democrats. They are the ones that built it through the 1940s, through the 1950s, through the 1960s, and it is like that plant in Little Shop of Horrors: Feed me, Seymour. Give me more money. It is what it is going to take to keep it going. So it is an expensive, expensive 54 hours, 48 minutes.

My colleague from Tennessee mentioned a little bit about the tax and spending, and I pulled an article out of the Wall Street Journal. There again, not the opinion of me, but the opinion of some of those that are watching this process. And he spoke a little bit about making it easier to raise taxes and the provision that was adjusted in the rules package. And I think this is so important for our constituents to know.

We have had a rule went into place in 1994 with Speaker Gingrich that provided that a three-fifths majority of the House was required to raise taxes. Well, our friends, our colleagues across the aisle have decided to put a loophole that you could drop that or waive that rule with a simple majority. That is very unfortunate. Very unfortunate. And it is disappointing.

The way we are going to reduce the size of government is to reduce the size of spending. And as my colleagues have said, that is what the American people want. Government is too big, too bureaucratic, too arrogant and too unresponsive. We saw it in Katrina. We see it any time we try to get through to a Federal agency and dial a number and

get put on hold and told to punch another number and then told to select a language we want to hear it in. Those are the problems that frustrate every single one of us, and the way we address it is to reduce what government has to spend. As I said, crippling small businesses with the legislation that they have passed, making it easier to raise taxes.

Also the majority party refused to acknowledge morally sound proven life-saving stem cell treatments that are going to spend your tax dollars. They are going to spend your tax dollars. American people, I hope you hear this one. They are going to spend your tax dollars on ethically controversial research that has never produced results. That is in our stem cell legislation. And then today we have had a vote on the Medicare part D. They are voting to revamp a very successful, highly popular Medicare part D, has over a 75 percent approval rating, and they have voted to revamp that.

And in the midst of all of this, we have Tunagate. And the Speaker had I understand has retracted her comments or has said that she is going to have this provision addressed. But we had the Del Monte Corporation that owns StarKist Tuna involved in this, and it seems that American Samoa is where they have their plant. And, Mr. Speaker, it was brought to our attention that they were exempted from the minimum wage law.

We do hope that that is addressed. But I have pulled a sheet, again, not my thoughts but this is coming out of Congress Daily, and I just wanted to read a comment that was in the article discussing this employer from the Speaker's district with the work that they do over in American Samoa with tuna. And they are talking about the competitiveness of the tuna industry and why they don't need a raise in the minimum wage.

And it was so very interesting to me because this company and this delegate is saying, well, we don't want the minimum wage raised because it would hurt our competitiveness. Now, I guess, Mr. Speaker that it is fine for Del Monte Corporation or for American Samoa to say that but it is not fine for my small business owners in the Seventh District of Tennessee to say that. It is not fine for small business owners around the country to say that. But I guess the majority thinks it is fine to vote for $5 billion to $7 billion, with a ``b,'' worth of unfunded mandates on small businesses.

Now, these were the comments from the delegate from American Samoa today regarding the minimum wage, and I am quoting from Congress Daily: ``The truth is the global tuna industry is so competitive that it is no longer possible for the Federal Government to demand mainland minimum wage rates for American Samoa without causing the collapse of our economy and making us welfare wards of the Federal Government.''

Mr. Speaker, every single business we have in this country is subject to global competition. It does not matter if we are in hardwoods or if we are in softwoods. If we are in hardwoods and producing furniture, we have got global competition. If we are in softwoods and we are producing pulp, we have got global competition. If we are in California growing tomatoes, we have got global competition. If we are a citrus producer and farmer in Florida, we have got global competition. If we are a shrimp farmer in Mississippi, we have got global competition.

Mr. Speaker, if it is good for American Samoa not to have a minimum wage, maybe we need to think about what we are doing to other small businesses and small business manufacturers. Do we really, really, really want to pass $5 billion to $7 billion worth of unfunded mandates on the producers of our Nation's jobs, three out of every four jobs, 7 million new jobs in the past couple of years? Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that that is a failed policy. It is a failed policy.

What we need to be doing is continuing to do what the Republicans as a majority did in this House, which was looking after the American taxpayers' pocket and making certain that they kept more of that paycheck at the end of the month; making certain that small businesses enjoyed tax relief, increased expensing, increased opportunities for depreciation; making certain that they had the ability to grow those small businesses and invest in those small businesses because that, Mr. Speaker, is how you grow an economy and that is how you grow jobs.

And as I said earlier, we have seen it play out, that when you reduce those taxes, when you leave that money with the taxpayer, they reinvest it, they grow those jobs, and guess what. The Federal Government ends up with more revenues. We had record years in 2005 and 2006 in Federal Government revenues, and it happened because of good tax policy that left more money with the taxpayer.

I mentioned also that the Democrats had refused to acknowledge morally sound, proven, lifesaving stem cell treatments and they are wanting to use your tax dollars on controversial treatments.

At this time I would like to yield to Dr. Weldon, the gentleman from Florida, who is, indeed, one of our foremost authorities on this issue. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

And if you will yield for a question, I want to be certain that I understood a couple of the comments that you made pertaining to stem cells and pertaining to the research because you have been such a leader on this. And I think we both would commend Dr. Burgess, the gentleman from Texas, who crafted our motion to recommit yesterday and worked diligently on that to be certain that cloning could not possibly take place.

But I want to be certain that we are clear on this and my constituents are clear on what you were saying because finding answers to some of the debilitating illnesses that many of our family members and friends have is important to each and every one of us and it is something that we are committed to.

And the gentleman has practiced medicine for so many years. I have spent many volunteer hours working on different boards, not for profits, for health care associations, whether it is the Arthritis Foundation or the Lung Association or the Cancer Society, and all of them are interested in this issue.

But I want to be certain that I understood you correctly, that according to the Journal of Science, they have documented 25 years' worth of research that has been done on different types of stem cell research and stem cell therapies and that much of this is taking place at the NIH and that we are, indeed, funding much of that research at the NIH. And I think that is important for people to understand.

And I will yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. This is something that has been funded here. There is funding that is there for the adult stem cell lines, the cord blood lines, and the amniotic fluid lines with the research that was presented last week from the scientists and researchers from Wake Forest and Harvard that are all proven. They are proven with results.

I thank the gentleman for the clarification on that and for the excellent work that he does for this body in making certain that the deception is peeled away and people realize where the commitment of the Republicans, the minority in Congress, lie in being certain that we protect the American taxpayers and we protect the morals

and values on which our Nation stands. I thank the gentleman.

Now I want to talk about the Medicare vote that took place today. There is a saying when I was growing up, Mr. Speaker, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This is a program our seniors will tell us over 75 percent are fine with this. If any of my colleagues were to say I get 75 percent of the vote when I go to the polls, that would be a landslide of monumental, monumental proportions.

But they want to take this program and change it for the sake of changing it. They have been asked by the American Legion not to do this, by the ALS Association not to do this. Epilepsy, don't change this, it is working. It is working.

The thing that I thought was so unfortunate was with our veterans and changing the pricing and price controls going into place, we have to realize the VA system is very different from the Medicare system. The VA system, it is comparing apples and oranges. The VA system is a direct provision of those health care services. Medicare Part D is an insurance plan, and we know that the prices come down on that. Some States have plans that are under $20 a month. The plan is about $200 billion less than was estimated when it first went into place.

So it is so interesting that the Democrats decided they wanted to change this plan. Let me just read some of the quotes from some of the groups that oppose the price controls that were put in place today. Groups that oppose, and I have heard estimates as high as $750 million extra that it is going to cost VA on this plan. Let me read the comments from some of these groups.

The American Legion, a group everybody knows, it is a veterans service organization, has nearly 3 million members and yesterday they sent out a letter opposing H.R. 4 asking for a ``no'' vote saying, ``It is not in the best interest of America's veterans and their families.''

Again quoting, ``Every time the Federal Government has enacted pharmaceutical price control legislation, the Department of Veterans Affairs experiences significant increases in its pharmaceutical cost as an unintended consequence.''

Mr. Speaker, those are not my words, those are the words of the American Legion on behalf of the 3 million veterans they represent asking that this not be done.

So in addition to passing $5 to $7 billion of unfunded mandates on to the Nation's small businesses, in addition to passing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of extra cost to our shippers because of the homeland security provisions, you also are going to put nearly three- quarters of a billion of extra cost onto the Veterans Administration health services.

I tell you what, as I said, Mr. Speaker, this is hang-onto-your- wallet Congress because in the first 54 hours and 48 minutes that is where we have gotten. It is a lot of money, and the tote board just seems to be adding right on up.

The ALS Association, Lou Gehrig's disease, voiced strong opposition to H.R. 4 saying, ``Legislation that authorizes the Federal Government to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices will significantly limit the ability of people with ALS to access the drugs they need, and will seriously jeopardize the future development of treatments for the disease.'' Those are not my words, that is the ALS Association in their opposition to the legislation that this body passed.

Epilepsy Foundation, and I am quoting from their letter, ``Access to the right medications for epilepsy can make the difference between living in the community, being employed, and leading a healthy and productive life. The consequences of denying the appropriate medication for an individual with epilepsy can be life threatening and can include injury, emergency room visits, hospitalization or other types of costly medical interventions.''

Mr. Speaker, that is the Epilepsy Foundation asking that the bill the majority passed today, H.R. 4, not pass because of the implications for those who suffer with epilepsy in securing the medications that they need.

Now here is the National Alliance for Mental Illness. They have had reservations and concerns about this legislation. I am quoting from their letter, ``NAMI is extremely concerned that placing this new legal mandate on the secretary would directly result in loss of the all or substantially-all guidance in the six protected classes and therefore poses a significant risk to Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness.''

Mr. Speaker, these again are not my words. They are concerns that have been expressed. They have been expressed by individuals that were concerned about what they saw happening in the first 100 hours in this administration.

What people thought they were going to see was transparency. They thought they were going to see openness. They thought they were going to see a willingness to step towards bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that what we have seen is missed opportunities. We have seen a closed process. The Rules Committee has not functioned. Legislation has gone straight to the floor. No debate in committee. No open process, and that has been unfortunate for the people of this Nation.

As I close, I will once again say that one of the things that does concern us is the impact on the American taxpayer and figuring out who is going to pay for this. Mr. Speaker, it does appear, it absolutely does appear that it is going to be the American taxpayer that is going to see government grow, government expand and government is going to continue to expand in the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the Big Government Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. This bill is politically driven, and it will result in a one-size-fits-all program that gives us higher drug prices, less consumer choice, and will certainly not uphold some of the access that has been made available through Medicare part D. And we know that seniors want choice. We hear that from them. They want to preserve the doctor- patient relationship, and they want access to prescriptions in their local communities.

What H.R. 4 does is to open the door for Big Government to decide what medicines patients receive instead of their doctors.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are rushing the bill to the floor to undo the hard work of Medicare part D. We know from survey after survey that over three-fourths of seniors are satisfied with this program.

There have been no discussions, no hearings, no analysis on how this proposal will impact the access of seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, you know, I do believe that everybody engaged in this debate today does have the best intentions at heart. And the beauty of this House is that important issues like this that face our country can be debated, and passionately debated, right here on the floor of the House for the public to see.

But this is not a debate about passion, and it is not a debate about style. It is, Mr. Speaker, a debate about substance. And the substance of this debate today is life. Clear and simple, it is life. That is why I rise to support ethical stem cell research and to oppose H.R. 3.

We hear from a lot of proponents of stem cell research that they have suggested that embryonic stem cells would provide potential benefits to all mankind, and some of them insinuate that those of us or anybody who opposes their brand of research doesn't care about the suffering of their fellow man, and that is completely untrue.

There are many of us with family and friends who look for breakthroughs for debilitating diseases. But the presumption that only embryonic stem cells have the most potential for success is inaccurate. The growth of these cells can be erratic and uncontrollable. We have had people speak to that today. And we all know that embryonic stem cell research has not given science any successes in treating diseases.

In my opinion, I think we would be giving away a little part of our humanity and our sense of ethics for mere hope that this form of research would some day at some point yield results that would surpass ongoing research.

So let's focus on the efforts that are proven alternatives, adult stem cell, cord blood research that have made great leaps, significant success. This past week, the researchers from Wake Forest and Harvard, using the latest in technology, made reports showing advances in stem cell research that can be achieved faster and safer with amniotic fluids.

I encourage everyone to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3 and to support our motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, you know, this is such an interesting debate that we come here to have on the minimum wage issues. All of our economic issues debates end up being such interesting debates, and I always love it when I hear the statements made that this is wrong and that is wrong, and our focus becomes, let us go to the government and expect the government to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, you know, we know that just is not so. I have found it so interesting that you would hear from people that it appears that the Republicans never raise the minimum wage. What about 1994? What about 1997?

Then we hear all of this about explosive costs. But what we are not hearing is that per capita disposable income has risen 9.2 percent in real dollars since 2001.

All the millions of jobs that have been created, nearly 7 million since 2003 alone. The reason this happens is because of good economic policy, because of good tax policy, because in leaving more money with the individuals that earn it and not doing things that are going to harm small business, as the gentleman from Ohio said, most of our Nation's jobs are created through small businesses.

We know from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, they estimate that a minimum wage increase without considerations for small businesses and their workers would impose a 5 to $7 billion unfunded mandate on small businesses.

Now, I ask my colleagues from across the aisle, are they willing to stand up today and pass an unfunded mandate, a 5 to $7 billion unfunded mandate on our Nation's small businesses? We know, raising the minimum wage will reduce employment, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Democratic bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak for just a moment about the war on terror and our efforts in Iraq. It is clear that we have come to a very important time in this effort. The President is going to speak about his strategy tomorrow night.

You know, I have been asked many times over the last few weeks, and certainly on Sunday when I was at Fort Campbell, if I would support a surge in the troops. I think that we have to remember that it is important that we listen to the men and women and the commanders in the field as we have this discussion.

We have to look at the situation: what does it take to defuse it, to stand up the Iraqis and make it easier to relinquish control to the Iraqis for their country.

It is exactly this sort of opportunity and these situations that really animate the work and the leadership of Lieutenant General David Petraeus, the American commander who has been there for a year with the 101st, who was back for a year training the Iraqi troops in Baghdad, and now will return again. He has been called the military's warrior scholar and has drawn deeply on his dual background to create a leadership style that is respectful of military tradition and is innovative. We support General Petraeus.

We look forward to his work there and his leadership style as we work to continue to defeat the terrorists and win the war on terror.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in acknowledging the retirement of Mr. Dennis Kamper and his 38 years of public service to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District.

Mr. Kamper began his career as a student earning both a Bachelor's and Master's Degree in Engineering at the University of Louisville. With the Corps, Mr. Kamper has served in the Louisville, Philadelphia, and Memphis Districts. At each assignment Mr. Kamper has received praise for his dedication to providing quality products and services to the Corps of Engineers and their customers.

Dennis has been a shining example of the Corps of Engineers' mission through his visionary leadership and exemplary managerial style. These contributions include the design and construction of numerous civil works projects, mentoring and recognition of his employees, his ``open door'' policy, and implementing and institutionalizing the Army Performance Improvement Criteria (APIC).

In addition to his professional responsibilities, Dennis Kamper has built a legacy as a model citizen and community leader. He is an active member in his church and the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME), a strong supporter of Memphis District's Adopt-a-School program, and a speaker at numerous Career Day programs promoting the engineering profession.

Please join me in honoring Dennis Kamper and wishing him the best in a well-deserved retirement.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his work on this issue and for his work on the Truth Squad.

Today is a historic day, as my colleagues have mentioned. I commend my colleagues from both sides of the

aisle on their collegiality and their tone as we have approached this day, and have recognized the historic importance and the significance of the first female taking the position of Speaker of this wonderful body which is the people's House.

You know, as the gentleman was saying, it is so important that we note, we are not here to complain. We are not here to gripe. What we are here to do is to highlight for our constituents some of the content of a rules package that seems to be hastily pulled together that did not go through the committee process, that didn't have hearings, and was brought to the floor for a vote.

I think it is important that our constituents know, because we have a lot of new Members of this body, and those voters that voted in the elections this fall did not go to the ballot box voting to have a government that was going to be carried out in the shadows. They went to the ballot boxes saying we want government that is more accountable. We want government that is more open. We want government that is more responsive to the needs of our constituents. We want government that is going to work more effectively and more efficiently for the American people.

And the very first vote that is taken on the rules package presented in the people's House today is a vote that would eliminate recorded votes in the Rules Committee.

Now, in my great State of Tennessee, we have had this discussion, and in our general assembly in the great State of Tennessee, we have had this debate, and people said over and over again we want those votes recorded. We want sunshine. We want openness. And that is something that needs to be highlighted with our constituents. They need to realize the format that they are wanting to push forward would deny the minority the opportunity to hear, have their amendments heard in the Rules Committee. Dr. Gingrey has highlighted some of the provisions, and he does such a wonderful job with our Rules Committee and the concerns that we have with the format that would go before the Rules Committee that would deny recording some of these votes, which means there is less accountability. So it is our responsibility to come and highlight those things.

You know another thing that the people did not vote for this November was to raise their taxes. They did not go to the poll and vote saying, ``Representatives, we want you to make it easier to raise the taxes on us.'' And one of the things that we find with the PAYGO rules is that it is basically pay as you go on a spending spree. Even the Concord Coalition has estimated that this 100 hours would cost $800 billion over 10 years if everything was funded. That is $80 billion a year for 10 years, $80 billion a year additional, additional, new spending.

Now, I can tell you one thing for certain. I don't know a lot, but one thing I do know is that the people of the Seventh District of Tennessee do not want to be forking over another $80 billion a year.

What they did vote for this November was to see government spending reduced, and that is where they want our emphasis to be. And it is important that we spell this out for our constituents, for the American people, for them to know what is transpiring as we come into the 110th Congress.

Words are important and it is important that we provide the clarification that is there and that is needed. And as I have viewed the package that we have debated some today and will debate tomorrow, I have come to realize that one of the things our colleagues across the aisle, the Democrats, have said is they want to go back to the way things were. I even said maybe Barbara Streisand's ``The Way We Were'' should be their theme song because that is how they want to go back to doing business where it is closed. This is what people voted against with the revolution in 1994. They voted then for more openness.

This past November, people thought they were going to see more action and more openness, and the first votes that are being taken are closing that process and are excluding people, excluding representatives of as many as 140 million Americans from participation in that process.

If the gentleman would yield and also yield to Dr. Gingrey, who is on the Rules Committee, but having served in a State legislative body, that is one of the things that our constituents who were tuned into watching so closely would say, how in the world can you represent me and then not tell me how you voted and try to keep that a secret? I am having a difficult time finding words to say how egregious that is and how offensive it is to our constituents.

And if the gentleman would yield, if my memory is correct, in 1995, when Speaker Gingrich and the House Republicans set the rules, that was at the time that they started recording those votes; is that not correct?

And before that, the votes were not recorded and it was the process. That is why I say we are returning to the way we were, the way they were. And it is different from the way business was conducted from 1995 until now. And I think that is an important distinction for our constituents who have stopped us on the campaign trail and stopped us as we have prepared to come in and take our solemn oath of office today and have said we want to be certain that this Congress is going to function in an open,

accountable manner. We want to know what is happening in the people's House, and it is your charge to keep with us to keep us informed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to honor Mr. and Mrs. Clyde Stephens as they celebrate 50 years of marriage. This is a tremendous milestone that embodies the enduring love and profound commitment they have for one another. For those of us who know the Stephens, their marriage is a celebration of life and an inspiration to us all.

On December 12, 1957, Clyde and Nellie were married in Corinth, MS. Clyde and Nellie were blessed with three wonderful children, Pam Stephens Kelly, David Stephens and Gary Stephens, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Tonight their family and friends are gathering in Middle Tennessee to celebrate this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, a 50th wedding anniversary is truly worth commemorating, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Clyde and Nellie Stephens.