Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 5, and we will have an opportunity later on in the day to discuss that thoroughly. But, mainly, at this point, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. You know, I heard my colleagues just say, the gentleman from Illinois and others, some of them new members of the Rules Committee, that in November the American people have spoken and they have asked for a break, a Federal break so that more students can go to college and get these low interest loans and Pell Grants. But I think what the American people said, my colleagues, in this last election, more than anything else, is don't trample on the rights of the minority.

And as a former member of the Rules Committee, my colleagues who are still on the Rules Committee, including the chairman, and Ms. Matsui, and others, we heard this repeatedly, Mr. Speaker. Don't trample on the rights of the minority.

I will say this. We did occasionally have closed rules that probably should have been open. But we always had a rule. And what this new majority has done in these first 100 hours is brought six pieces of legislation, four without any rules whatsoever. And now the very first piece of legislation, H.R. 5, it is a very important subject to try to help low income students afford a college education, there is a closed rule, immediately doing the things that you have railed against us about.

And I think this is what the American people basically said. They want you to guarantee the rights of the minority. You have heard from the ranking member of the Higher Education Subcommittee. You are going to hear from the ranking member of the overall Committee on Education and Labor in just a minute.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, they speak for every Republican member of that committee, and they speak on this issue for every 202 Republican Members of this body who represent virtually half of this country. And you are taking their voice away. So this is really what this is all about. This is the time really to discuss the rule.

And, of course we can talk about the bill itself, as former Chairman Dreier did, and the fact that what you promised the American people in these fall elections is you were going to give them a $60 billion break on higher education, which all of a sudden you have reduced down to 10 percent of that, $6 billion, which virtually does nothing.

But as I say, Mr. Speaker, we will get into that discussion when we talk about the bill, when we finish discussing the rule. But I just want to say to my colleagues, all of whom, the former four Members, now the majority, and the new Members, that I respect, these are my friends, and we can talk about this, and we should. This is an opportunity to say to them, you said if you got the majority, which you now have and enjoy, and you worked hard and you deserve it, that you would not do the same things that you felt like we were doing to you, and I think in some instances you were correct.

So stand up, be men and women of your word, and do what you said you were going to do and not close this process down.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act. Once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle bring legislation to the floor today that will do nothing to solve the problem they have outlined.

In this country, a college education is an accomplishment that all individuals should have the opportunity to pursue. I believe it is not only a noble, but also an essential endeavor for our government to pursue avenues to increase access to post-secondary education for any and all individuals interested. However, Madam Speaker, it needs to be said that this legislation does nothing to actually tackle that very real and crucial problem.

Right now our country is in need of leadership that will tackle the tough issues head on, not hide behind some quick sound bite solutions, rhetoric that does not translate to sound policy that actually combats the problem.

Madam Speaker, the problem really is the price tag of a college education. My colleague, the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, has brought this fact to the forefront of this Congress over a number of years, and certainly as chairman of this committee in the 109th. This is the real problem, the sticker shock of these low-income families trying to pursue for their children a college education. And here we are offering them a little bit, a very little bit in small increments over a 5-year period, cutting the interest rate.

I want to remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, of the old adage that you can absolutely go broke saving money. These kids cannot afford a college education because of the inflationary spiral of tuition and fees at our college campuses and universities, both public and private.

So this is the kind of issue that we need to address, not this window dressing of just lowering the interest rate. They don't really get that break until they get out of college, 6 months after graduation, at a time where that shouldn't really be a problem for them. But coming up with that $10,000 a semester to go to school is wherein the real problem lies, especially for these low-income families that would be eligible for the benefit, this $6 billion benefit, which, by the way, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, was actually a $60 billion promise in these recent elections last November. Ninety percent of the promise has automatically disappeared.

The point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that this bill could be a lot better had we had the opportunity for it to go through the regular process, the Education and Labor Committee, so that both Democratic members of that committee and Republican members, the minority, would have an opportunity to offer amendments to make this much, much better, and to let the American people know that we can do a much better job than this.

So we can do a lot better than this, Madam Speaker, and I am going to oppose this bill. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at this and give us the opportunity to recommit with instructions, so we can send this bill not back to committee, but to the committee under regular order and get a better product.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4. It is unbelievable, in fact, that the Democrats would bring this bill to the floor. They were not part of the solution when we passed the prescription drug act, that they failed to pass for 25 years. I can understand them wanting to get on to a rising stock, but, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this: they are betting on the last 10 percent.

Hanging this albatross around Medicare part D that has been so successful is going to drag it to the bottom, and it is going to hurt our seniors. It is going to hurt my mom. Seniors are saving an average of $1,100 per month because of competition in the marketplace.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this week, the Democratic majority has trampled on the rights of the minority with these four bills, allowing us no opportunity for amendment. But, do you know what? I think on this particular bill, they have done us a favor. The way they have done us a favor is they have not allowed us to bring forth an amendment, trying to put lipstick on this legislative pig, and that is a favor to us. That is a political win for the Republican Party, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is a loss for our seniors.

We need to kill this sucker dead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Last year, the new prescription drug plan, Medicare Part D, was implemented and seniors in our country had access to drug coverage for the first time.

In its first year, the Part D program enjoyed lowered than expected cost, high enrollment numbers and an overwhelming vote of satisfaction from America's seniors. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is the definition of success.

Let me underscore the specific statistics that back up these statements, because in the course of the debate proponents of this government price control bill have misconstrued and misrepresented the realities of the Part D program.

First of all, in 2006 Part D cost $26 billion less than expected and over the next 10 years it is projected to cost 21 percent less than earlier forecasts. Mr. Speaker that represents a savings of over $200 billion to the American taxpayer--a savings Mr. Speaker, in a government program! Which leads to another important aspect of the Part D program, competition.

When Congress created this new prescription drug benefit, it was designed to use the power of competition to deliver low prices to America's seniors. For instance, Medicare beneficiaries were expected to pay an average monthly premium of $37. However in 2006, because of the fierce competition among plan providers to provide this benefit to our seniors, the average monthly premium shrunk to $24.

Seniors are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Part D plan. In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 81 percent of enrolled seniors are satisfied with their Medicare drug plan and only 4 percent are dissatisfied. In fact, a recent J.D. Power and Associates survey found seniors are more satisfied with their Medicare drug plan than with their auto insurance, home mortgage and cable service.

So, Mr. Speaker, that leads us to a very obvious question. Why are we debating a major change to this successful and popular program? The answer is quite obvious, but extremely disappointing. It is politics.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time over the past few years throwing bricks at the ``Republican Part D Plan.'' And they didn't stop last year when the surveys and statistics were pouring in at how much this program was saving our seniors. And, Mr. Speaker, when it became obvious that the program was both successful and popular, the Democrats started touting the sound bite that Medicare needed the power of government negotiations to deliver even more savings to seniors. It seemed they wanted to capitalize on the very popularity they were undermining just a few months earlier.

Unfortunately, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that political rhetoric has proven difficult to turn into sound policy. The reason is very simple. The Part D program is successful because the government has remained out of the negotiation process and private companies have fought hard to earn the right to service America's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office affirmed this in a letter to Senator Frist in 2004, and again this week to Chairman Rangel. CBO states and I quote, ``We estimate that striking. that provision (the non-interference provision) would have a negligible effect on federal spending because CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree.''

If my Democratic friends are only using this debate to score a few cheap political points, they should be ashamed of themselves, considering the only people that will pay for this maneuver are our struggling seniors.

Mr. Speaker, this is a hugely important issue. I know all Members are listening intently, and I hope the American public is listening. I want to remind them what a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had to say.

One of their Members earlier in the debate basically said there was a philosophic, fundamental difference between them and us. They believe that government should control health care; we believe that the private sector should do it. Amen. The private sector should do it.

Another of their Members stood up and said he couldn't believe that the current Secretary of HHS doesn't want to have the requirement of negotiated price controls. Well, I will tell you why he doesn't, because he is not a typical bureaucrat. He believes, as Ronald Reagan believed, that you need to step out of the way; government needs to get out of our lives and not be in our medicine cabinet.

Finally, the gentlelady from Nevada said if she were a betting woman, she would bet that these price negotiations would lower the price even further. Well, I want to say to her that she is betting on the last 10 percent, Mr. Speaker. This is a wonderful program, it is working well, and she is about to hang an albatross around the neck of the program and hurt our needy seniors, including my mom.

Vote ``no'' on this piece of bad legislation.

I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, but definitely not in opposition to stem cell research; indeed, not in opposition to embryonic stem cell research. That is the position, my colleagues, of this President and most of the Republicans in this House. It is not an issue of being opposed to research on embryonic stem cells, but it is in opposition to research that results in the destruction of human life.

Certainly if you ask the American public when they look at this picture on television if they would be in favor of embryonic stem cell research, if you could help this man, or, even more compelling, our colleagues in this body, Lane Evans and James Langevin, the answer would be a resounding, yes, 80 percent. I think maybe I would be one of those who would be inclined to so vote.

But on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if you held up this picture, snowflake babies, and asked them, would you be willing to support embryonic stem cell research if it meant the destruction of these lives, or not giving these lives an opportunity to ever develop, I think the answer, with the statistics, would be completely reversed.

Now, the Members in this body, some are strongly pro-life, some are mostly pro-life, some are slightly pro-life and some are pro-choice, whether we are Republicans or Democrats. But I think most of us would say we are pretty much opposed to abortion, and we wish there would be no need for abortions.

Well, we have an opportunity with H.R. 322, the Bartlett bill, of which I am a very proud original cosponsor, to do it another way, to do research, indeed, to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, either through a biopsy or through using embryos that have no chance to live. We can get viable embryonic stem cells.

The point is, we don't have to divide this body and this Nation. We have lots of things that we can argue about legitimately in a friendly atmosphere, and that is the way it should be in this body.

We have gotten Members, a Republican and a Democrat, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, who are very popular Members, very persuasive, but are very committed to this issue. We have a better choice. Now with this research from Wake Forest utilizing amniotic cells and the provisions within the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, let us give that a chance. Let us give life a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I do so not because

I oppose embryonic stem cell research but because as an OB/GYN physician I oppose federally funded embryonic stem cell research that destroys life. And the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in this belief; in fact I am joined by nearly half of the American public.

Let me say that again, nearly half of the American public opposes using taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research when a human embryo is destroyed in the process.

I know that the supporters of this bill claim that an overwhelming majority of Americans whole-heartedly endorse their bill. However, when individuals in our society are asked specifically whether or not they would like the Federal Government to fund research that destroys a human embryo, the survey results are absolutely divided.

And that Mr. Speaker is what we are actually debating on the floor of the House today. We are debating the question of whether or not the American taxpayer should pay for research that encourages the destruction of human embryos.

We are not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country, because, of course, it is not only completely legal but also well funded in both the private and public sector. In fact, between state governments and the private sector there is nearly $4 billion committed to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years.

I also want to dispel the myth that the Federal Government currently does not fund human embryonic stem cell research. In actuality, by the end of 2007, the Federal Government will have spent over $160 million. When President Bush signed the Executive Order in 2001, he made possible the federal funding of embryonic stem research. His executive order merely limited federal funds to support research which utilized already established stem cell lines. This decision removed any backdoor federal incentive and separated the United States government from the business of encouraging the destruction of human embryos.

Mr. Speaker, another policy issue we are unfortunately not debating today, is the use of federal funds to research alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic-like or pluripotent stem cells. The fact of the matter is the hope held dearly by many individuals of this country with respect to embryonic stem cell research is not grounded solely in the fact that these cells are embryonic. Rather, researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells because they are flexible, that is they can specialize into any type of human tissue. This characteristic is also true of pluripotent stem cells, and the good news is that pluripotent stem cells can be obtained in a variety of ethical and scientifically promising ways.

Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be illustrated anymore clearly than in the study made public this weekend by researchers at Wake Forest and Harvard. This study shows not only the capability of researchers to obtain pluripotent stem cells from amniotic fluid but that these stem cells grow fast and show great flexibility.

This new, cutting edge research has great relevance in the debate we are engaged in today. The fact of the matter is that this study is yet another reminder that science moves faster than the Federal Government. We no longer need to engage in a passionate debate that divides our country in half. We no longer need to contemplate a unilateral decision to spend taxpayer dollars on research methods that nearly 50 percent of the public oppose.

No, Mr. Speaker, let us instead bring to the floor legislation that unites this country and does not divide. Let us examine and debate the multitude of alternative and ethical methods of obtaining pluripotent stem cells, methods similar to the research recently published regarding amniotic stem cells.

Representative Bartlett and I have introduced such a piece of legislation, it is bill H.R. 322. Today, on the hallowed floor of the House of Representatives, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us and half of the American public, in supporting a bill that promotes lifesaving medical research that does not sacrifice life in the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage has not increased in 9 years. Yet over the past decade, we have experienced vast economic growth, record low unemployment and, in the last 3 years, the creation of 7 million new jobs. Without a doubt, at 4.5 percent, our unemployment rate is so low that some employers seek out illegal foreign workers to fill the jobs that they say a lot of Americans won't take.

If we raise the minimum wage, businesses will have to find a way to offset added labor costs by one of two things, raising prices on goods and services or laying off workers. This is simple economics that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot seem to accept or understand. When prices go up, demands go down. In other words, as the minimum wage grows, so does the unemployment rate.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, unlike the debate in the Senate, H.R. 2 comes to the floor with no committee hearings, no committee votes, no opportunities for amendment. While our colleagues in the other body work on a compromise with President Bush,

Members of the House of Representatives are shut out of any constructive debate.

As a former member of the Rules Committee, I am extremely disappointed in the majority's failure to live up to its promises and allow an open and fair process on such a crucial issue.

For the benefit of the workforce, I ask my colleagues, vote against the minimum wage increase. Protect our small businesses. Let's sustain this economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much Dr. Price's giving me an opportunity to be here once again, once again, with a great team, the Truth Squad, and taking up where they left off in the 109th, Mr. McHenry and Ms. Foxx and others, led by Dr. Price.

And, of course, there are a couple of pretty darned important issues on the floor in this 100-hour rush to pass with no amendments, as you pointed out, Dr. Price, no opportunity to even present amendments to get rejected. And we are talking, of course, about the two bills, one tomorrow, and that is the stem cell issue, and then, on Friday, Medicare part D. I would be glad, happy, thankful for the opportunity to talk a little bit about part D and maybe later in the hour touch on just for a few minutes the issue of the stem cell bill that is coming up.

Medicare part D is working. You have heard that old expression ``If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.'' I think that applies to this issue, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, more than any I have seen in a long, long time.

Because I know the majority party particularly loves to look at polls, loves to look at numbers, and I don't blame them. I understand that, too. But this is an 80 percent issue of satisfaction, is it not? And we are talking in 1 year, our seniors, 38 million of them, 80 percent of them are very, very happy with Medicare part D. They have finally gotten it.

We delivered it, we the Republican majority at the time in November of 2003, and we gave them something that they have literally been waiting for not the entire 40 years of Medicare, but I would say certainly for the last 25 years, and that the previous and now new majority could not deliver on.

So I could understand their wanting to get on the bandwagon at this point and take credit for something. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we are looking at a situation where they are about to gum up something that is working fine, and we need to let it continue to work. And I say that not just because it is an opinion that I hold as a physician or based on what people in my district, the 11th of Georgia, are telling me, but I base it on the fact that originally we predicted that the premium for Medicare part D would be about $37 a month. At that time, the Democratic minority both in the House and the Senate introduced amendments and/or legislation saying, let's fix the premium, the monthly premium, at $35 a month. Let's fix it. Well, if they had prevailed in doing that, Mr. Speaker, then today they would not be enjoying an average monthly premium of $24 a month. So let the market continue to work.

If we start talking about the number of years we have been in practice, the folks back home and in the Chamber will figure out how old we are, so we better stay away from that. Suffice it to say, we have both been at it for a long time, you in the field of orthopedics and me as an OB-GYN. Again, I appreciate what you are doing with respect to the Truth Squad.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) made some great points. First, anybody who suggests that this President is not for stem cell research just absolutely is ignoring the facts. The fact is, before 2001, when the President said we could start to use Federal dollars, your dollars, my dollars, our constituents' dollars, to fund stem cell research, indeed embryonic stem cell research on those existing lines that were indeed obtained from embryos from IVF clinics, because that destruction of life had already occurred and these stem cell lines existed, since that time in 2001, Mr. Speaker, we have spent I think the figure is $163 million on stem cell research. Representative Foxx mentioned that. We want that to continue. We want to be able to continue to fund that through the NIH.

But she also addresses the issue of truth in advertising. I know the majority party is thinking this is an issue that polls 80 percent. Sure, if you show a public service announcement with Michael J. Fox, unfortunately, with wild movements all over the screen or you show Christopher Reeve and he is on a respirator and is a quadriplegic, and you say to them: Would you, Mr. and Mrs. America, would you be in favor of embryonic stem cell research that could cure these diseases, you are going to get an answer 80 percent of the time, a resounding ``yes.''

But on the other hand, if you held up two precious twin toddlers, as I have seen, who are part of the snowflake baby population that were adopted embryos, and said: Would you be in favor of destroying these embryos so these lives never existed in the hopes that we could help Michael J. Fox or Christopher Reeve or your mama or my grand mama, the answer would be a resounding ``no.'' That is where we get into this issue.

I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that is why we want an opportunity, which we are not getting, to go to the Rules Committee with amendments. Maybe they would get rejected. Maybe we would have an opportunity to bring them up on the floor, and talk about alternative ways of getting these stem cells, adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells from this amniotic fluid study that just came forward, or to get embryonic stem cells by biopsying an embryo without destroying it or even harming it, or taking one of these frozen embryos, thawing it out and you can tell microscopically that it has no chance of developing into a life, and taking those embryonic stem cells. That is all we are asking, Mr. Speaker.

I am very appreciative in the limited time that Dr. Price has left for allowing me to say a few words, and I want to turn the time back over to him for his concluding remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Captain Hayes Clayton, a heroic member of our military who was killed in action on Christmas day in Balad, Iraq.

Captain Clayton was a classmate of my daughter, Laura Neil. She remembers his strength of character. Others have remembered his strength of faith. Indeed, Captain Clayton leaves behind a legacy of living by the highest moral principles.

Before enlisting in the Army, Captain Clayton was known as a standout defensive end on the football team at Marietta High School and a skilled Army ROTC member at Fort Valley State University in Georgia.

Captain Clayton leaves behind his parents, Reverend Hayes and Marlena Clayton, his brothers Eric and Michael, his loving wife Army First Lieutenant Monica Clayton, and a precious 4-month-old son, Hayes, III, who proudly carries on his father's name.

Mr. Speaker, my prayers go out to his family and my deepest gratitude goes out for his selfless and deep sacrifice for our Nation. I ask you to join me in honoring the distinguished memory of Captain Hayes Clayton.

I thank the gentleman. No question about it, physicians are small businessmen and women. I do feel a little bit like a fish out of water with the economic competitors caucus. Most of my colleagues who have spoken here are, indeed, without question, small businessmen and women, and, in fact, of course, Representative Conaway from Texas is a CPA.

But as Representative Shuster is saying, physicians are small businessmen and women. Even a small practice like the one I was in with the four or five OB/GYN doctors, we probably had 40 employees, nurses, front office people, lab people.

Bill Shuster is absolutely right: we had to meet a payroll, we had to provide health insurance, we had to provide benefits. We had to worry about how we are going to have the money to expand and maybe bring in a new partner and grow the practice.

My colleagues were talking about section 179 under the IRS Tax Code that under Republican leadership would increase the amount that could be deducted on capital improvements, bricks and mortar, putting in a new X-ray machine, whatever, from $25,000 to $100,000, and to allow that small businessman and -woman to write off an additional $300,000 worth of capital improvement, investment, job growth, over an accelerated period of time.

That has, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, without question, has stimulated this economy. As I listen to my colleagues in the first part of the Special Order talking about the job growth, the unemployment rate, the increase, the amount of revenue, particularly over the last couple of years, I think we are talking about maybe an additional $400 billion worth of revenue after these tax cuts that includes low and marginal rates for every single taxpayer, the increase in child tax credit from $600 a child to $1,000 a child, eliminating the marriage tax penalty that Mr. Conaway talked about, eliminating that death tax.

We have, Mr. Speaker, created 7 million additional jobs since the spring of 2003. When I first got here in the early part of 2003, for months at a time I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about, watch, we have lost another 30,000 jobs this month, we have lost another 40,000 jobs this month. Now they can't say that because I think we have gone something like 18 straight months with job growth.

But what I do hear them saying is, oh, these are service jobs, these are minimum-wage jobs. They are not important. I didn't hear that argument when they were wailing away about the fact that we are losing jobs.

We could have said, well, these are unimportant jobs, these are seasonal jobs, these are service jobs. They are not that important to the economy. They are important to the economy, and they create dignity of work and pride and an accomplishment, people putting out a day's work for a day's pay.

So that is really what we have done here. I think that what my good friend from Pennsylvania was saying cuts right to the chase: PAYGO rules as adopted in that omnibus rules package for the 110th Congress that was passed last week is a recipe for making it easier to raise taxes and more difficult indeed, Mr. Speaker, if not impossible, to lower taxes. And that is exactly what these new PAYGO rules do. Because under these rules, as my colleagues know, you can raise taxes without any offsetting cut by simply going through this process of reconciliation and raise all this entitlement spending, and that is exactly what will happen.

Representative Shuster was talking, or maybe Mr. Conaway, a few minutes ago about this bill that we just passed in regard to completing the promises of the 9/11 Commission. It doesn't do that; it is an absolute farce to suggest that it does. But there is no question that inspecting every single piece of cargo, every single crate that comes into this country through a maritime port, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the cost is? They totally ignored how we are going to pay for that.

So this PAYGO business, it is not law. It is not in legislation. It does not have the force of that, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can simply waive a rule any time they want to in term of PAYGO. So we need to be truthful to the American people.

It has been said during this hour that, in 1960, we had a Democratic President, President Kennedy, and he cut taxes, and we raised revenue; President Reagan did it in 1980; and President George W. Bush has done it in 2001 and 2003. We have not lost revenue because of lower rates and tax incentives mainly for small businessmen and women; we have created an additional 7 million jobs. And, yes, they are paying taxes at a lower rate. Yes, they are getting to deduct certain things to help them be able to grow their businesses. And so you have a lot more people, 7 million, indeed who are paying taxes or paying at a lower rate. But when you crunch the numbers, and I am not a math major, but that is where you come up with an additional $450 billion. Whereas, on this static scoring system that we get from OMB and CBO, they say, well, because you have cut the rate here and you cut the rate there and you have given $1,000 instead of $600 per child and you are finally getting rid of the death tax, over 10 years, this is going to cost $1.3 trillion. Well, yes, if it didn't work, it was going to cost $1.3 trillion. But the fact is, it did work. Instead of costing money, we raised revenue, as Representative Shuster has pointed out.

But I will guarantee you one thing, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, if you let these tax cuts expire, and there is no question about the cost to the American taxpayer and it is real, it will be an additional $2.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, with that I am going to turn it over to the real experts on business. But I appreciate the opportunity of joining them tonight and weighing in on this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the majority in regard to title III and the overall civility tone as it pertains, of course, to conference committees and having the opportunity for Members of the minority conference team to be present, not to have things added at the last minute after all the conferees signatories have read the report and designate it as complete and then add something at the midnight hour. All of these things are good.

I was in the Georgia State Senate in the minority, and I remember the Democratic president of the senate appointing me to my first conference committee. I was thrilled. It was an issue on which I had worked very hard with the majority, and I couldn't understand why I was never called to a conference committee. And then at the sine die hour, all of a sudden this conference report was stuck under my nose and asked for my signature without even reading it, and I was absolutely appalled at that. So I commend the majority for wanting to clean that up, and I support it.

But I agree with my former chairman, now ranking member, of the Rules Committee in regard to the argument that was proffered just a minute ago that it doesn't really go quite far enough. But let me spend a little time continuing to make the point that he just made in regard to this issue of holding votes open.

Now, during the last 2 years, during almost the entire 109th Congress, after we passed an historic prescription drug benefit for 38 million seniors who had been waiting for 45 years because the now majority, when they were in control, could never deliver on that promise, all we heard for 2 years were these complaints of, well, you held the vote open 3 hours and 28 minutes. You were breaking arms of a former Member from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and others, and it was inappropriate, how appalling that was.

And now maybe you are right. Maybe holding the vote open for that purpose is inappropriate when the concerns of our constituents might be that when a Member in good conscience is opposed or in favor of a particular controversial piece of legislation and his or her vote is not going your way and so you get him in a corner or a back room and say, hey, what can we do for you? Or maybe what can we do to you if you don't vote with us? Like removing you, a good productive Member, from a certain select committee, or maybe we promise to put you, who is not quite qualified, on a good select committee that you have been wanting and pushing for for a number of years, and all of a sudden you grant them some earmark that is absolutely egregious, maybe almost as bad as the ``bridge to nowhere.''

So I would say to my friends in the majority, why the modifier ``sole'' purpose? If you really believe this, as the gentleman from California just pointed out, take out that modifier. Let us not hold votes open beyond 15 minutes for the purpose of breaking an arm and trying to change someone's mind when they in good conscience have had plenty of time to consider the bill, to think about it, indeed, maybe even pray about it. I think it is inappropriate, and I agree with you. But let's get serious about this. Let's make sure we really change it and it is not just some window dressing to kind of make your argument that you have been trying to make over the last 2 years. Let us take out the modifier, close the loophole, get serious about this, and that is real reform.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Title V of H. Res. 6 and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.

Since the election we have heard promises of grandeur from the new Democrat majority. They have promised to usher in a new era of civility, bi-partisanship, and cooperation into the halls of Congress. They have repeatedly stated that the American people want a civilized tone in Washington. But it appears the Democrats are ignoring their own message.

In the opening hours of this Congress, with their very first piece of business, the Democrats have put forth a resolution that is the opposite of civility and transparency--indeed, a total contradiction of the way they pledged to conduct business. For the first time in the history of this body, Madam Speaker, the Democrats have included closed rules governing future debate in the House rules package, and have even gone so far as to prevent the Rules Committee from meeting to deliberate these rules or the larger rules package.

But they did not stop there, Madam Speaker. After promising an open and fair process, the Democrats have allowed just 10 minutes of debate--that's 5 minutes per side--on Title V of this resolution.

This is no small measure, Madam Speaker. Included in Title V are closed rules governing debate on stem-cell research, the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, the cost of prescription drugs, and the federal minimum wage. Certainly the American people expect a debate of ideas and the proper congressional process for some of the most important issues facing our Nation. Instead, the Democrats will deliver 10 minutes of debate.

Further Madam Speaker, Title V of this resolution will prevent the votes of the Rules Committee from being made public. A veil of secrecy will fall over this critical committee they now control. This is not the transparency and accountability in our political process the Democrats have promised.

So, Madam Speaker, it appears the new age of the Democrat majority will unfortunately not live up to its much-hyped billing. Instead of more openness, fairness, and transparency, the Democrats have revealed the hypocritical nature of their disingenuous promises with their very first piece of legislation. Reneging on their campaign promises in the opening hours of this session is no way to build the spirit of trust and cooperation across the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I hope for the sake of the American people that the Democrats start adhering to their pre-election rhetoric and conduct the business of this body in a civilized manner.

I thank my colleague from Georgia (Dr. Price) for yielding, and I thank my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the two co-authors of the minority bill of rights. I am a proud co-sponsor of that, and I am proud of their ethics in regard to that.

And also, Mr. Speaker, let it be known to our colleagues that this Official Truth Squad of the former freshman Members, now sophomore Members, this is not something they just dreamed up tonight. This is something that they have been doing for the entire 109th Congress and putting some sunshine out there on a lot of these issues and shining that light of day, and this is, of course, part of a continuing process.

Dr. Price and Mr. McHenry are exactly right; I was enjoying very much being on that select powerful, powerful Rules Committee, and had that opportunity to go home and tell the folks back home that I am a member of the powerful Rules Committee. And as a member, many times I had an opportunity to hear the minority, the current chairman, Ms. Slaughter, the vice chairman, Mr. McGovern, the senior members, Mr. Hastings and Ms. Matsui, talk about the process and talk about this idea, the appalling idea of a closed rule as Congressman Price points out, and what they are doing in this rules of the House package that they are sort of forcing upon us in asking us to vote on with much less than 24- hour notice.

Just listen to some of the quotes of the former four minority members of the Rules Committee who are now running the show and driving this package that contains not one significant piece of legislation, but five pieces of legislation, including the minimum wage bill, the stem cell research bill, which indeed is truly life and death issues, the 9/ 11 Commission Report, completing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I mean, these are not naming of post offices, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. We all know that and we know the significance. But listen to what my colleagues would say and did say many times in regard to one piece of legislation.

First of all, let me quote Ms. Slaughter: ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, Mr. Speaker, not just appropriations bills which are already restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the exception.'' This is from the Congressional Record of June 14, 2005.

Listen to what my good friend, Mr. McGovern, had to say on September 28, 2006: ``If the Republican leadership does not agree with the bipartisan substitute, then they should defeat it on the House floor after a full and open debate. Instead, they cower behind procedural tricks, parliamentary sleight of hand and closed rules. No wonder the American people are disgusted with Congress. If my Republican friends want this trend of closed rules, of no amendments, of no democracy in the House to continue, then by all means vote for this rule. Just go along to get along. But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed room, then vote 'no.' Have the guts to vote `no.' ''

That was Representative Jim McGovern.

Listen to what our good friend, a senior member on the Rules Committee, Mr. Alcee Hastings, had to say on September 28, 2006: ``I have said it before: the way the majority runs the House is shameful. It is hypocritical, it is un-American, it is undemocratic, and it happens every single day that we have a closed rule, and in other circumstances as well.'' He goes on to say ``closed rules are an affront to our democracy. We should stop it now. My outrage and the outrage of all on this side is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy.'' Congressional Record, July 12, 2005.

Finally, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui: ``The American people want to hear practical, well-thought ideas from their elected representatives. Today we could have had that honest, engaged and realistic debate. These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the floor. They deserve to be debated, and they deserve a vote. Unfortunately, under the rule reported out, this will not happen. Instead, we will have a gripping session that yields no results. Congress is part of this government. In fulfillment of its responsibilities, this House should reject this rule and bring real policy to the floor.'' Congressional Record, June 15, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I think you get my drift. They are doing exactly what they railed against us about. The righteous indignation that we heard on a continuing basis in the Rules Committee, and here they come with the rules of the House, and they include in it five pieces of legislation with no rule whatsoever. What do we get? A motion to recommit.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and giving me an opportunity to talk about that a little bit because at the beginning of my remarks, I talked about the powerful Rules Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, it is a powerful Rules Committee in that you decide how long you can talk on an issue. That is, you limit the time of debate. You have the power to make amendments in order to give a Member on either side of the aisle, majority or minority, an opportunity to come and talk about their amendment on the floor. They may get beat 434-1, but they have that opportunity.

As an all powerful member of the Rules Committee, as Representative Price was just saying, all of a sudden, in this rules package, they are saying that one of these all powerful members can make these votes, can set this time of debate, can deny the amendment opportunity for Members on either side of the aisle and then not take a public vote, not take a roll call vote, and not go home and face their constituents, these all powerful members of the Rules Committee, not answer to their constituents for why they denied maybe a Member of their own party a good idea to debate on the House floor, their body.

And I am going to tell you the rhetorical question Dr. Price asked, was why would this new majority do this? I can offer a suggestion. They now, of course, have nine members. The four that were in the minority are now the majority including the chairman of the Rules Committee and the vice chairman of the Rules Committee, but they also have an additional five seats, which they are filling with some of their newly elected freshmen Democrats who can go home in these marginal districts, these red Bush districts, if you will, and say that I am an all powerful member of the Rules Committee, re-elect me, but yet not have to answer for these difficult votes that they took probably in opposition to what their constituents would want them to do.

So I thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the rhetorical question of why they might want to do that.

I think the gentlewoman from Tennessee is absolutely correct on that.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the former chairman of the Rules Committee, my colleague from California, and also congratulate the new chairman of the Rules Committee, our friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I just want to point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman that just spoke, this ethics reform package, which we are not opposed to in the totality of it, but many, if not most of these provisions, Madam Speaker, were a part of H.R. 4975, the Republican ethics reform package which we passed in this House in May of this past year with only eight, count them, Madam Speaker, eight votes from the other side. There was total opposition to everything that we wanted to do in regard to ethics reform.

I will remind my colleagues in regard to the so-called K Street Project, that very provision, that is, Members not being able to put pressure on companies in regard to hiring practices, in regard to granting of any legislative favors, was part of that package. But yet our colleagues in the majority party now want to come forward and say ``the K Street Project.''

Now, where is the sense of fairness and fair play and bipartisanship in sticking it in the eye of the new minority, when we tried to change that very thing that they voted against?

I would say furthermore in regard to this overall package of rules, what is this business about not holding a vote open for the sole purpose of changing a vote? If that is in fact a good policy, not being able to do that, and I tend to agree with the new majority that we shouldn't be able to break people's arms with favors for earmarks or special committee assignments which may not be appropriate, then why use the word ``sole?'' Putting in ``sole purpose'' would allow them or anybody to lock a Member in the bathroom and say we are holding the vote open because they are stuck in traffic. So I would suggest let's eliminate ``sole'' and say for the purpose of pressuring a Member to change their vote against their will.

Last and not least, and maybe the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, can address this point of this unbelievable idea that members of the Rules Committee, the new members, maybe to protect the freshman members, are not allowed to have a roll call vote in the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when reading title II of this resolution, as it looks conspicuously like the ethics package passed by the Republican majority last Congress; the ethics package that only eight Democrats voted to support. I suspect today more than eight Democrats will finally agree with the Republicans that meaningful ethics reform is a priority of the American people.

In fact, the most obvious change in the Democratic package is the overly partisan and adversarial tone, adding headlines like ``Ending the K Street Project'' to language that was included in the Republican legislation. And for what purpose other than a partisan poke in the minority's eye?

Democrats campaigned on the promise of a more open and inclusive government, assuring us of their bipartisan intentions. Well, today, on the first day of the 110th, that promise has

been broken. Indeed, it has been smashed.

Additionally, as the focus of title II is on fostering a spirit of civility, I find it particularly troubling that the Democrats have decided to allow only 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side, on title V of this resolution, which we will take up tomorrow.

During this brief 10 minutes of debate, we will dramatically change the way the Rules Committee does business and outline the process by which five bills, including stem cell research, the 9/11 Commission recommendation, and minimum wage legislation will be considered. That is not even 2 minutes per proposal.

So this is hardly, Mr. Speaker, the tone of civility my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are promising to foster in the 110th Congress.

The American people and the Members of this body expect more from the Democrats. Their false promises of bringing a new age of bipartisanship and transparency to the halls of this Congress have clearly not materialized, despite the insistence on this by my former colleague, Mr. McGovern, while a minority member of the Rules Committee who stated, on September 28, 2006, while discussing the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, and I quote, ``If my Republican friends want that trend of closed rules and no amendments, of no democracy in the House to continue, then, by all means, vote for this. Just go along to get along. But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed room, then vote ``no.'' Have the guts to vote ``no.'' End quote.

Mr. Speaker, I know why the Democratic leadership is trying to limit debate on these liberal bills, but the American people deserve to have a voice in this process, the voice of their elected representatives. Today, it is clear we have been denied that voice.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1099 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1099 provides for the disposition of the Senate amendment to H.R. 6111. It makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution. This resolution waives all points of order against the motion and it provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, it provides one motion to amend which shall be separately debatable for 5 minutes by the proponent and 5 minutes by an opponent.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1099 and the underlying bill, H.R. 6111, which is entitled the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Madam Speaker, I also rise today for what will likely be my last time managing a rule, at least perhaps until the 111th Congress. I would like to briefly take this opportunity to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing me to serve on this prestigious Rules Committee and also I would like to thank Chairman Dreier for his stewardship of the committee in addition to the committee staff who have been there each and every step of the way to assist me and my staff. It has truly been an honor to serve with my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I feel blessed for having had this opportunity to work with all the members, Republicans and Democrats, of this great committee.

Madam Speaker, from the extension of expiring tax credits and the strengthening of health savings accounts, to the exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf and an increase in payments for physician services, this bill provides the Congress with an opportunity to debate and pass a vast array of good policy initiatives. I know there are some who do not agree with the legislative agenda in the closing days of the 109th Congress. Indeed, most on the other side of the aisle have opposed the majority agenda every step of the way, perhaps so they could use the soundbite that this is a do-nothing Congress. However, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a crucial piece of legislation that must be passed for the sake of taxpayers and their families

This bill demonstrates our commitment to returning more money to the taxpayers on top of creating more incentives for economic growth, innovation and entrepreneurship. Madam Speaker, at the end of last year and at the close of this current year, many important tax provisions and incentives will expire, thereby forcing hardworking Americans and their families to shell out more of their hard-earned money to the Federal Government. This bill will extend these expiring provisions through 2007, and it demonstrates our commitment to the American taxpayer and our commitment to fostering entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Specifically, this bill provides teachers with an important and a well-deserved deduction for higher education expenses as well as a deduction for their out-of-pocket classroom expenditures on behalf of their pupils. Our teachers should not be punished by the Tax Code for investing in their students and improving the quality of education in the classroom.

Also, this bill strengthens our rural communities by extending a new markets tax credit to help foster new industries and diversify our local economies.

Additionally, the bill extends the State and local sales tax deduction. This is most important in those States which have no income tax to deduct, but they are burdened with very substantial sales tax levies.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also extends the research and development tax credit. Technological innovation is absolutely vital to America's continued economic growth and prosperity. Without investment in research and development, all innovation and growth would come to a screeching halt, with catastrophic effects on our economy as we continue the fight to try and compete globally. We must do everything that we can to help incentivize research and development so that we keep the United States a leader in business and technological innovation.

Additionally, this bill also extends the welfare-to-work tax credit and the work opportunity tax credit, creating more chances to put people to work and further reduce the Federal welfare rolls. Recognizing our need to reduce energy costs and maximize energy efficiency, this bill also extends various energy tax credits for energy efficient homes and businesses, for methanol and ethanol fuel, and for businesses that produce electricity from solar energy, fuel cells or microturbines.

Also, the underlying legislation provides for the exploration, the development and production activities for mineral resources in the OCS, Outer Continental Shelf. In February of 2006, the Department of Interior released a comprehensive inventory of OCS resources, estimating approximately 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Madam Speaker, the combination of energy-efficient tax incentives and increased domestic energy production are integral to reducing our dependence on foreign energy as well as finding new and cleaner ways to produce and use energy. I don't know whether the Iraqi Study Group included this as part of their 79 recommendations, but if they didn't, make this No. 80.

This bill also contains many important bipartisan health care provisions which represent the culmination of many hardworking hours spent by our committee chairs and our leadership on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers. The final product is one that communicates to the American people that Congress is dedicated to addressing the

problems in our health care delivery system.

First and foremost, this legislation reverses the scheduled 5.1 percent cut to physician's reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In 1997, Congress established this sustainable growth rate formula in an attempt to control part B utilization in the Medicare program by reducing physician fees. Unfortunately, the formula is so inherently flawed and it is estimated that physician reimbursement in the Medicare program will continue to decrease into the foreseeable future. In fact, MedPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, has reported that physician payments are expected to be cut by a total of 37 percent over the next 9 years under this SGR formula. With the reality of the impending retirement of the baby boomer generation, the already strained Medicare program will reach a crisis state. By reversing this scheduled cut for one year, 2007, this legislation takes a step in the right direction to protect access to quality health care for our seniors. To state it simply, as a result of these changes, primary care and other physician specialists will be there when our seniors need them.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes very important and helpful revisions to current law in regards to health savings accounts. These changes are just another example of the forward-thinking ideas that are needed to reform our health care system. This bill provides more flexibility to individuals by allowing them to roll over assets from flexible health spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements into health savings accounts.

Health savings accounts are growing in popularity among employers and employees, and when these accounts are coupled with a high deductible catastrophic health plan, they serve as an all-encompassing insurance solution for individuals of all ages and at all stages of life.

America's Health Insurance Plans conducted a study earlier this year that showed that over 30 percent of individuals enrolled in HSAs were previously uninsured. It also showed that one-third of purchasers had incomes of $50,000 or less. This really debunks the naysayers' claim that this choice, this health savings account option, benefits only the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth, Madam Speaker.

By tearing through the red tape and allowing people to consolidate and transfer their accounts into the increasingly popular HSAs, more consumers will have access to these insurance plans, putting themselves in the driver's seat of their health care decisions. And when they have skin in the game, both figuratively and literally, they will choose the best and most effective choice from the health care menu.

Madam Speaker, the list goes on as to what this legislation does for health care in America. From ensuring doctors are reimbursed for using the latest treatment therapy for prostate cancer, to extending the therapy caps exception process for an additional year, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 continues the much-needed reform of our health care system, and this Republican-led Congress spearheaded this over the last years

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to my friend from Massachusetts as he bemoans the provision in the bill regarding the provisions that allow for expansion of offshore exploration of natural gas off of the gulf coast States, he is right.

In this body, we have tried to be more comprehensive. That is no reason to oppose what little bit of agreement that we could get from the Senate in regard to an attempt at a comprehensive energy provision. Because of parochial opposition, we were not able to do the same thing off the coast of Florida and California. I indeed and many on

my side of the aisle were in favor of that and a more comprehensive, expanded opportunity for domestic production.

And another example I want to point out particularly for the gentleman from Massachusetts, there was a very interesting project off the coast of his State called Cape Wind that would have produced a tremendous amount of energy in the cleanest of clean ways, renewable energy, in that Cape Wind project, but it was parochial opposition from the Members of Congress and possibly the State legislature in the State of Massachusetts that did not permit that project to go forward.

So we have to deal with those. It is understandable, we can understand the opposition even though passage would be for the greater good of the entire country, but we do what we can do. There are very, very many energy provisions in this bill, a lot of tax credits to try to incentivize the use of cellulosity of products and biofuel to produce methanol and ethanol. And so I think we have a very good, comprehensive project here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentlewoman from North Carolina just in response to my good friend from New Jersey. What a welcome relief to hear him say that as they ascend to the majority in the 110th Congress that he is going to fix permanently this physician shortfall.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are estimated by MedPAC that over the next several years we are going to have a 37 percent decrease in physician payments to permanently fix, CBO and OMB estimates, a $150 to $200 billion cost over 10 years. So it will be interesting to see how our friends on the other side of the aisle pay for that, but I am glad that they are going to step forward to the challenge.

At this point I want to yield to my good friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. She started her discussion by saying that this bill has kind of been rushed through in the dark of night and there hasn't been an opportunity to study the details of the bill. But as a hardworking Member of this body, the gentlewoman from Texas clearly has had sufficient time to look at all those provisions, that litany of provisions, those line items that she went through and endorsed wholeheartedly because of the compassion that she has got in regard to the education of our children and public schools, the provisions in there that help to continue to rebuild the Gulf Coast States, one of which of course is her great State of Texas, and what that expanded ability to obtain natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, what that means to the State of Texas and Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. So, while she was decrying that the bill was rushed through and she doesn't understand it, I am glad to know that she fully understands it and endorses it. And I guess if she had more time she would have gone on and listed some other provisions that she is in favor of, and I thank her for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in response to the gentleman from Florida.

I'm sure the gentleman from Florida had a number of occasions over the last year to give that speech throughout the State of Florida, and I appreciate his position on this issue.

But I want to point out to him that of the Gulf Coast States, those four States of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, we have seven Republican Senators, and that we have three Republican Governors, three out of four. Seven out of eight.

But when this bill was debated in the Senate, the vote was 71-25, and I remind the gentleman from Florida that there are only 55 Republican Senators in the other body. I can only say that Governor Blanco and Senator Landrieu must be awfully persuasive. This was a strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and I would guess it will have strong bipartisan support, including these provisions in regard to gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't involve Florida or California

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My able staff has just presented me with some fairly interesting statistics. I just said in my previous remarks that the vote on the Senate side was 71-25. Included in the 71 ``yea'' vote for this exploration off the gulf coast were 17 Democrats. The interesting thing about this is one of those is the incoming majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Clinton from New York, a Senator of some prominence in a neighboring State to Massachusetts, and last, but not least, Senator Nelson from the great State of Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Jim McGovern for those kind remarks. The feeling is indeed mutual. I certainly have enjoyed serving with him and all the members of the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I thank him for his kind remarks.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1099.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill. I do want to take this opportunity in closing to recognize the hard work and efforts of Chairman Thomas and Chairman Barton, as well as their respective committees, for the final product that we have before us today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Thomas for his decades of service to this House and the people of his district, as well as Americans all across this Nation.

Bill Thomas, a brilliant professor from Bakersfield, has truly been a leader across the board, and his expertise and devotion of 28 years of service across this country will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a very important piece of legislation that positively impacts each and every American by fostering economic growth, driving innovation, increasing our energy supply, and improving the quality of health care in this country. As the 109th Congress draws to a close, and the minority prepares to become the majority, I believe that we must work together to produce legislation like this that recognizes the fact that when the government gets out of the way, Americans can do what they do best, and that is what is best for America.

I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Barton for giving me an opportunity.

I hope we can work out with the other side, and of course, they are doing the due diligence they should do in watching in these waning hours, that as we approach sine die to look out for any mischief, but I think as Representative Terry described, this is a very good piece of legislation that was added to an outstanding piece of legislation, the PREEMIE Act.

I am standing to support the PREEMIE Act, not the additions, but hopefully, like I say, the concerns can be allayed and we can work this out. But I am the granddad of premature, indeed immature, infants that were born at 26 weeks, weighing 1.12 ounces. They are 9-year-olds today. My daughter is on the board of directors of the March of Dimes of the State of Georgia and has worked very hard and asked me to support this bill.

As Chairman Barton says, this is the number one piece of legislation for the national March of Dimes, and I would really hate to see this great bill go down sine die because of some additions to it, but hopefully, those will be accepted by the other side, and I support the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Stan Wilkins of Cartersville, Georgia, a minister, teacher and friend to so many in our community.

Dr. Wilkins passed away last week at the age of 53. While his celebrated life was certainly too short, his accomplishments as a Baptist preacher and community advocate will long be remembered.

Dr. Wilkins was only 17 years old when he answered the call to the ministry, and in the next 18 years as a pastor, most recently at Cartersville First Baptist Church, he spread his passion for education and a firm commitment for fulfilling the spiritual needs of his congregation. Dr. Wilkins also was deeply involved in the Cartersville community, serving as a member of the Bartow County Rotary Club, the United Way Allocations Board and the Good Neighbor Homeless Shelter Board.

Indeed, everyone whose life was touched by Dr. Wilkins is indebted to his enthusiasm for service and his outreach for education. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in honoring the memory of Stan Wilkins, an outstanding member of the Cartersville community.