Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mayor Tim Leslie of Aubrey, Texas, who passed away Thursday, January 18, from complications due to pancreatic cancer. Mr. Tim Leslie, born in Salt Fork, Utah, moved to Denton, Texas, with his family to attend graduate school at the University of North Texas, where he later received his doctoral degree. He instantly became active in the community by starting youth baseball teams and teaching local children. He had a passion for both education and baseball, and would willingly discuss both topics with anyone. Mr. Leslie's love for. baseball led to the establishment of the first baseball field in Aubrey, Texas. As a young man, Mr. Tim Leslie realized the many benefits of schooling, and would continue to inspire others in their education endeavors. He would call college recruits for his baseball players, and he helped start the Aubrey Education Foundation, a scholarship for local students. Due to his passion for education, he ran for a position on the Aubrey ISD School Board, on which he served 11 years, many as the chairman of the school board. Mr. Leslie's intelligence and natural leadership abilities ensured his role as mayor of Aubrey in 1999. While mayor, he facilitated a new waste water treatment building, the Aubrey Area Library and Community Building, and new athletic fields for the community. With help from his wife, Mr. Leslie started the Aubrey local newspaper, the Town Charter, in 1999. One of his goals was to publish mostly positive and uplifting news, which would astound many newspaper editors. As an optimist, he had a habit of focusing on positive events in life. Despite Mr. Leslie's faithful involvement in the community, his family continued to be a top priority. His deep love and concern for his family remained strong throughout his illness, and his loss will be greatly felt among family, friends, and the community. Mr. Leslie is survived by his wife, Allison Leslie, and three children, Chad Leslie, Tiffannie Leslie, and Jason Leslie. I extend my sincerest sympathies to his family and friends. Mayor Tim Leslie will be deeply missed and his service to our community will always be greatly appreciated.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Myrene Law of North Richland Hills, Texas, who celebrated her 103rd birthday on January 16, 2007. Born on January 16, 1904 in Fort Worth, Texas, Ms. Myrene Law was an only child raised by her aunt, Rose Melton Twining. She attended Central High School, now Paschal High School, and graduated from a local business college to acquire skills needed as a legal stenographer. She grew up in a time when newspaper carriers shouted out the news and people listened to radios as a form of entertainment. Ms. Law met her husband, Nugent Law, when she was 12 years old; they were married in 1926. The Laws had a daughter, Rosemary Law, who passed away at a very young age, and a son, Leroy Law, who is now 67 years old. In 1944, the couple moved to North Richland Hills, Texas, into a house in the Smithfield area where she remained until faltering eyesight forced her to move into a retirement community at 96 years of age. As a stenographer, she worked a myriad of jobs. Ms. Law first worked for a real estate agent, then 4 years for a law firm, 6 years for the legal department of Sinclair Oil Company, and for 10 years at General Dynamics. Initially attempting to retire at age 65, she decided to work for a ``lady journalist'' the following week, using a typewriter to transcribe recordings for Jane Pattie of Aledo, an author of historical books on cowboy and American Indian facts and legends. Ms. Law later retired again at age 83. An avid listener of audio books, Ms. Myrene Law has a friend take her to the North Richland Hills Public Library every other week to check out books on cassette, her favorite of which are mysteries. Another friend faithfully takes her to church on Sundays. In addition to being a church and library regular, she also enjoys listening to sermons and news programs on the radio, keeping friends updated on the weather, sharing information on her family, and telling jokes. I extend my utmost congratulations to Ms. Myrene Law on her recent 103rd birthday, and I join her family and friends in wishing her well in the year 2007. She is a blessing to our community and I am proud to serve as her representative.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill on the floor. Supporters of the bill claim that this will boost our energy independence, promote the use of renewable and alternative energy, but looking at this bill, you really cannot find anything that will help us accomplish those goals. In fact, there are four provisions in this bill that will make us more, not less, dependent on foreign oil by making it more difficult and more expensive to produce the needed energy here in the United States. The bill specifically disallows energy companies from receiving the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, thereby making it more expensive for them to do business in the United States and more likely that we will be buying our oil from someone outside this country. Higher energy taxes will be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher gasoline and in the form of higher home energy prices. Similarly, heavy users of oil and natural gas, such as other manufacturers and agricultural producers, will feel the pinch of these higher prices. Mr. Speaker, I just cannot help but note the irony that film makers will continue to be eligible for this manufacturing deduction, yet in my district I have not had a single constituent complain about our increasing dependence on foreign film. The bill before us today would repeal the royalty incentives put in place under last Congress' Energy Policy Act of 2005 to encourage the energy production in hard-to-reach and technologically challenging places such as the ultra deepwater Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of Mexico delivers more oil and more natural gas to United States markets than any other single source. Since approximately 97 percent of America's coasts are off limits for energy production, energy companies are forced to explore for and produce from increasingly difficult-to-reach places. The incentives included in the energy bill we passed in August of 2005, which now would be repealed by the Democrats, encouraged production in the Gulf of Mexico that will help the Nation meet the production needs of the future. It is important to note that unlike the 1998-1999 Clinton leases, under every provision in the energy bill, where royalty relief is granted, the Secretary of the Interior is granted the authority to set those price thresholds, to set those price triggers based upon market price. Producers would not and do not receive royalty relief through the energy bill of 2005 under today's price climate. These provisions provide energy companies with some price certainty, a price floor that they need, that it is necessary to make to justify the billion dollar investments in America's energy. The bill creates a new Strategic Energy Efficiency Renewables Reserve but does not specify how those funds would be used. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the increased use of renewable and alternative energy. In fact, Texas has a strong State renewable energy portfolio and is the largest producer of wind energy in the United States, but before we cast our votes today let us be sure what we understand that the bill is for. It is for partisan advantage, not for the good of the American people.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Vietnam Veteran Carl Gene Young, Sr., who passed away Wednesday, January 10, at Denton Regional Medical Center due to a myocardial infarction. A native of Denton, Texas, Mr. Young served as a city council member for 6 years before retiring in 2001. He was an outspoken, honest spokesman for southeast Denton, and was known as an advocate of affordable housing and diversity in city government. Mr. Young was devoted to those he represented and was genuinely concerned with any issues affecting them. Friends and former colleagues will always remember him for his dedication and loyalty to his community. Before joining the city council, Mr.Young served in the First Air Cavalry in the Vietnam War. He later organized an annual Easter egg hunt to honor 16 soldiers that were killed on Easter Day 1968. Veteran Carl Young, Sr., was a true patriot and was proud to serve our country. I worked alongside Mr. Young on the Denton County health executive director selection committee. The committee assignment was one that would affect every citizen in Denton County, and Mr. Young was thoughtful and thorough in his duties. I remember him as insightful and truly caring. In addition to his role as a politician and soldier, Mr. Young was also a loving husband and father. He deeply cared for his family and friends, and was a strong pillar in our community. I extend my dearest sympathies to his family and friends. Veteran Carl Gene Young, Sr., will be deeply missed and his service to our community will always be greatly appreciated.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Lewisville Chief of Police Steve McFadden. After more than 38 years in municipal service, 34 years of which were served as Chief of Police, Mr. Steve McFadden will retire in February 2007. Mr. Steve McFadden grew up in a small town outside of Paris, Texas. After graduation from East Lamar High School, he served in the U.S. Army for three years where he discovered his calling into law enforcement. He later received a Bachelor of Science degree from East Texas State University. Due to Mr. McFadden's strong leadership abilities and thorough education, he was promoted to Police Chief within five years of serving as a police officer. In November of 1977, Mr. McFadden became Chief of Police in Lewisville, Texas. At that time there were only 27 sworn officers, a force that has grown drastically to include 136 officers today. The crime rates in Lewisville have been kept low due largely to the strong cooperation of the police department. Chief McFadden believed that one of the most integral aspects that contributed to their department success was honesty and trust. He believed that his job as police chief was not any more important than those jobs of the officers and dispatchers. Mr. McFadden inspired a sense of pride and integrity in his staff. He was one of the most experienced and respected police chiefs in Texas, and his retirement is viewed as a great loss to the department and to the community. The decision to retire was not an easy one for Mr. McFadden, as he will truly miss his colleagues and serving our community as Lewisville Chief of Police. He does, however, look forward to spending more time with his wife, Judy McFadden, his two daughters, his son, and his granddaughter. It is with great honor that I recognize Mr. Steve McFadden for decades of hard work and selfless dedication given to the citizens of Lewisville, Texas. I am proud to represent him in Washington, and his service will be set as a standard of devotion and true leadership, one that will never be forgotten.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas, and that he may control the time and yield as he sees fit.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might ask, does ideological purity trump sound public policy? Of course, it shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears we are on the threshold of profound changes in the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. Think of that, Mr. Speaker. Here is a Federal agency that delivered on a promise that we made here in Congress, daybreak, November 22, 2003, and it arrived on time and under budget. When have you known a Federal agency to behave in such a way? The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, despite the comments of my distinguished chairman. The changes are being proposed because a viable program lacks the proper partisan label. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time since the inception of Medicare, well over 40 years ago. Indeed, over the past year, saving money has not just been a catchy slogan; it has been a welcome reality for the millions of American seniors who previously lacked prescription drug coverage. Under the guise of negotiation, the Democrats propose to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. The claim is billions of dollars of savings. But the experts in the Congressional Budget Office yesterday denied that the promised savings will actually materialize. The reality is competition has brought significant cost savings to the program and, subsequently, to the seniors who depend upon this program every day. Consider that the enrollment in the part D program began just a little over a year ago and has proven to be a success. CMS reports that approximately 38 million people, 90 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, are receiving comprehensive coverage, either through part D, an employer-sponsored retiree health plan, or other credible coverage, including the VA. But consider this: retiree health coverage was disappearing at a rate of 10 percent a year prior to the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act 4 years ago. Further, the cost of the program for 2006 was $13 billion below budget estimates. Half of that amount of savings was attributed to competition. The projected average premium was originally $37 a month. That is what the HHS figured out was going to be the basic premium. That is the best their actuaries could do. We will get that premium down to $37 a month. But the beneficiaries are actually paying an average premium of less than $24 a month. Ninety-two percent of all Medicare beneficiaries will not enter the Medicare's cost coverage gap because they will not be exposed to the gap or they have prescription drug coverage from plans outside of part B, or their plan covers in the so-called gap. Eighty percent of the Medicare drug enrollees are satisfied with their coverage, and a similar percentage say that out-of-pocket costs have decreased. With all that is going right about the program, it seems unwise and unkind to jeopardize its success. Specifically, just a month ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that negotiating prescription drug prices may actually lead to higher prices for consumers. Further, the Manhattan Institute For Policy Research advised that Federal price limitations will result in decreased investment and research and development on less new medicines and ultimately an overall negative impact on available pharmaceuticals. Available to whom? Available to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Again, consider: Under the cloak of negotiation, the reality is that Federal price controls could have an extremely pernicious effect on the price and the availability of current pharmaceuticals and those products that may be available in the future to treat future patients. Is ideological branding so critical it trumps providing basic coverage to senior citizens? Mr. Speaker, in a former life I used to study medical irony a lot. In the past 4 years, I have come to study political irony. The irony of this situation is that, for 40 years, various Presidents and Congresses tried to provide this benefit to the American people, to the American seniors, and it couldn't be done. It took a Republican President, a Republican House and a Republican Senate to provide this benefit. And therein is the problem. It lacks the proper partisan branding. Mr. Speaker, while crafting policy that ultimately became the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the concept of protecting the inclusion of market forces in the legislation was a critical aspect of the ultimate bill; and keeping in mind that the central tenet of providing recipients of the large Federal program access to Federal drugs with the emphasis being on taking care of those who were least well off and those who had the greatest health problems. The Republican policy trusted the marketplace. They trusted the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution to achieve the above goals. We had no shortage of individuals who were concerned about the overall concept and scope of the program on the Republican side during the debate. But it is useful to compare the proposals that were proffered by the other side of the aisle during this time. Specifically, there would have been limits on access to medicine to seniors, limits on pharmacies, and right from the beginning, there was a tacit acknowledgment that the program would cost considerably more money over time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time on my side be divided, with 40 minutes going to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee; and 50 minutes reserved for the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and commitment of Emily S. Pettigrew, an honorable soldier who has shown dedication and professionalism in her efforts to free and secure Iraq. Army PFC Emily S. Pettigrew has been awarded the Army Commendation Medal for her continuing support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This Medal of Honor is awarded to those in the Army who have distinguished themselves through exemplary service and meritorious achievement. Important objectives of the mission include, but are not limited to, peacekeeping, security, support, force protection and acquiescence throughout the strenuous transition process of the Iraqi Government. Emily Pettigrew is the daughter of Richard and Dottie Pettigrew, residents of Country Hill, Keller, Texas, in the heart of my congressional district. As a soldier in Iraq, Army PFC Emily S. Pettigrew serves as a member of the Fires Brigade, 4th Infantry Division stationed at Camp Liberty. While in Iraq, the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood advances operating bases and performs duties at numerous camps. Combat missions assigned to the Fires Brigade have been completed successfully on account of the soldiers' devotion, altruism, and commitment to our country. It is with great honor that I stand here today to recognize Army PFC Emily S. Pettigrew as a truly generous and outstanding individual, not only in the eyes of her family and friends in Keller, Texas, but also in the heart of this nation. I am proud to represent her and her family.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Darrent Williams, the Denver Bronco professional football player from Fort Worth, Texas, who passed away at 24 years of age on January 1, 2007. Darrent Williams will forever be remembered as a talented and compassionate young man who not only loved his family and friends but also proved to be dedicated to his teammates and his adopted city of Denver. Raised as an only child by his mother Rosalind Williams, Darrent grew up in Fort Worth where he attended O.D. Wyatt High School located in my congressional district. Excelling at three different sports, Mr. Williams received scholarship opportunities from multiple universities. Wanting to stay close to his home in north Texas, Mr. Williams decided to play football at Oklahoma State University. While at Oklahoma State, he was one of only four college players since 1996 to record double- figure interceptions while scoring at least five touchdowns. He was also a Jim Thorpe Award semifinalist, and in 2003 tied at 13th in the Nation with six interceptions. Due to his incredible performance at Oklahoma State, in 2005 Mr. Williams became the Denver Broncos' second- round draft pick and would soon be a starter. Mr. Williams became known as the ``Denver Bronco Kid,'' a nickname that would spread across the Nation as others recognized his energy, enthusiasm, and talent. As a young professional football player, he not only excelled at the game but also brought strength and cooperation to the team. He was a special person with unbelievable character, and he will continue to be admired by many across the country. Throughout his life, Darrent Williams portrayed qualities that warmed the hearts of those around him. It was these traits that won the hearts of many. I extend my sympathies to his family and friends, and may this young man be an inspiration to us all.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share the collective grief of the people of North Texas in the death of Fort Worth Officer Dwayne Freeto, who died in a car crash while stopping to assist a young woman with a flat tire. The young woman, Adriana Delgadillo, refers to Officer Dwayne Freeto as ``a guardian angel.'' As a dedicated servant of the community as well as a loving father and husband, Mr. Freeto was not going to leave Miss Delgadillo until he knew she was safe. His amiable character and devotion to others are few among many qualities that contributed to his heroic nature. The grief from his loss is not only shared by his family and fellow police brethren but also by the greater Tarrant County area. Mr. Dwayne Freeto was a wonderful father to his two daughters, Jordin and Jenna, and treasured spending time with them. He also loved his wife, Karen Freeto, dearly, and despite the unusual hours he was assigned to patrol, he always ate meals with his wife and daughters before work. Officer Dwayne Freeto's personality and selflessness made him a trusted friend, devoted husband and father, and a grateful son. As a patrol officer, Mr. Freeto's courage and loyalty brought hope of a safer community--my community. He will be remembered as a husband and father, a hero, and a friend. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends; he was a true gift to this world.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Judge John Harold Whittington of Dallas County, who passed away over the holidays in Irving, Texas due to natural causes. Mr. John Whittington lived a respectable, accomplished life, and continues to be a political inspiration to many Republican officeholders. When he was elected County Judge in November 1975, he was one of the first Republicans elected to countywide office in Dallas County since Reconstruction. As a Judge, Mr. Whittington was not only dedicated to following the law, but also ensured fairness in that each person's position was heard; those who worked for Judge Whittington had the utmost respect for him. He also had a dry sense of humor that seemed to reduce any tension in the courtroom. Mr. John Whittington was an inspiration as well as a political mentor for many young Republican officeholders. Born in Bloomington, Indiana, Mr. John Whittington moved with his family to Dallas, Texas as a young child. Growing up, he served as an altar boy at Christ the King Catholic Church and was active in sports at North Dallas High School. He received his Bachelor's degree from Southern Methodist University and his law degree from the University of Texas at Austin. He later enlisted in the Navy, where he served as a gunnery officer and was a boxing champion. Mr. Whittington then served in the Navy Reserve, retiring as a captain. After moving back to Dallas, he was continuously active in the community by working for the Veterans Administration's legal department, the City Council, as mayor (pro tem), and for the Dallas County Commissioners Court, after which he served as County Judge. Having a full career, Judge Whittington leaves an exceptional legacy. John Harold Whittington is survived by his wife, Margaret Whittington, son, Mark Whittington, three daughters, Lynne Whittington, Jeanne Ann Whittington, and Maria Malcolm, and four grandchildren, Stephen Whittington, Patrick Whittington, Liza Jane Malcolm, and Evan Malcolm. In addition to his role as a devoted and respected Judge, he will forever be remembered as a loving husband and father, loyal colleague and friend, and a dignified citizen of this country. I extend my sincerest sympathies to his family and friends. Mr. John Whittington will be deeply missed and his service to our community will always be greatly appreciated.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Linder.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today, and a lot of it good on both sides. I again remain disappointed we were not allowed in our committee to fully investigate and understand some of the new issues that surround this science. I think it is extremely important to know that nothing that we have done so far would preclude the cloning of human tissue, and that is something that needs to be addressed. So for that, I have asked Dr. Dave Weldon to share some of his thoughts with us on this subject.

Mr. BURGESS. In its current form I am.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just mention it is my sincere regret after hearing the remarks of the Representative from Illinois who just spoke that we were not allowed the alternative of fully vetting this in a committee hearing. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Texas, Judge Lou Gohmert.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Chair for the recognition and I thank the gentleman from Georgia yielding. I do want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for taking an extra minute to talk about the issues that concluded the last hour. I think it was important, and it needed to be done, and the American people do need to hear that debate as well. In the process of the first 100 hours, and I don't know where we are now, in my count it is about 44 hours into it, but it is a funny kind of timekeeping. We started this Special Order hour at about 6:00 in the evening, that is 5:00 back home in Texas. That means we will conclude the House business for the day in 2 hours; that is 7:00 back in Texas. That is not really an onerous work schedule that we are under. We have just managed to spread it out, do a little less work and spread it out over more days to look like we are doing more. But my purpose here this evening is to offer, really, a public service, a little bit of education, a little bit of history. Because many Members in the House are new, they were not here when we went through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In fact, some of this story goes back even before Dr. Gingrey and I started here in 2003. So let us take a step back to just a little while earlier in the decade and visit with one of the President's press releases when they talked about his vision for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. It rolled out with a good deal of fanfare one day, that the benefit would be voluntary, accessible to all beneficiaries, designed to provide meaningful protection and bargaining power for seniors, affordable to all beneficiaries for the program and administered using competitive purchasing techniques consistent with broader Medicare reform. That was the message that the President delivered at that time to the Senate to deal with major Medicare reform to provide a prescription drug benefit. Let us go over it again, because it is important. Voluntary Medicare beneficiaries who now have dependable, affordable coverage should have the option of keeping that coverage, accessible to all beneficiaries. All seniors and individuals with disabilities, including those in traditional Medicare, should have access to a reliable benefit, designed to give beneficiaries meaningful protection and bargaining power. A Medicare drug benefit should help seniors and help the disabled with the high cost of their prescription drugs and protect against excessive out-of-pocket costs. It should give beneficiaries bargaining power that they lack today and include a defined benefit, assuring access to medically necessary drugs. Under the administrative part of the communication to the Senate, it says very specifically, discounts should be achieved through competition, not regulation, not price controls, and private organizations should negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and handle the day-to-day administrative responsibilities of the benefit. The press release goes on to talk about some other things. The President urges the Congress to act now. It is instructive that this press release was issued March 9, cherry blossom time here in Washington D.C., March 9, the year 2000. This was a press release issued by then-President William Jefferson Clinton to Senator Tom Daschle with Clinton's instructions as to how he wanted this drug benefit drawn. Well, I think its instructive to remember the past because there are some inherent dangers with tinkering with the program that is already working well. But the real central question in front of us is, does ideological purity trump sound public policy? We all know it should not, but unfortunately it appears we are on the threshold of profound changes to the part D program. These changes are not being proposed because of any weakness, because of any defect in the program. The changes are being proposed because a viable program lacks the proper partisan branding. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage, lower cost, than anytime since the inception of Medicare over 40 years ago. Indeed, over the past year, saving lives and saving money has not just been a catchy slogan. It has been a welcome reality for the millions of American seniors and those with disabilities who previously lack prescription drug coverage. Under the guise of negotiation, their proposals now are to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. The claim is billions of dollars in savings, but experts in the Congressional Budget Office, as evidenced in The Washington Post just today, deny that the promised savings will actually materialize. The reality is competition has brought significant cost savings to the program just as envisioned by President William Jefferson Clinton and enacted by President Bush. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program and subsequently to the seniors who are actively using the program today. Consider that the enrollment of the part D program began in January of 2006, just a little over a year ago, and has proven to be a success. CMS reports that approximately 38 million people, 90 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, are receiving comprehensive coverage, either through part D, an employer-sponsored retiree health plan, or other credible coverage. Going back to the press release of 2000, there was concern because that credible retiree prescription drug coverage was leaving at a rate of about 10 percent per year. That was arrested with the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act. Ninety-two percent of Medicare beneficiaries will not enter into the Medicare benefits drug coverage gap because they will not be exposed to the gap, or they have prescription drug coverage from plans outside of Medicare part D, or their plan coverage of the so-called gap, an important point as seniors go for their reenrollment, which they have just come through to make sure that their drugs, in fact, are covered in the coverage gap. In the State of the Texas, there are five plans that will cover drugs in the so-called coverage gap. Eighty percent of the Medicare drug plan enrollees are satisfied with their coverage, and a similar percentage says that out-of-pocket costs have decreased. Think of it, a Federal program, a program administered by a Federal agency with an 80 percent satisfaction rate, on time, under budget. When have you ever heard of a Federal agency delivering a program that was on time or under budget? Again, consider, under the cloak of negotiation, the reality is that Federal price controls could have an extremely pernicious effect on the price, on the availability of current pharmaceuticals and those products that may be available to treat future patients. It is ideological branding so critical that it trumps providing basic coverage to our senior citizens. Thus the challenge, would it not be better to continue a program that empowers the individual rather than create a new scheme which seeks to reward the supremacy of the State? I see we have several speakers lined up, and I don't want to monopolize too much more time, but let me just go on with one other point. The American health care system in general, the Federal Medicaid program in particular, there is no shortage of critics both at home here and abroad. But remember it is the American system that stands at the forefront of new innovation and technology, precisely the types of system-wide changes that are going to be necessary to efficiently and effectively provide care for America's seniors in the future. I don't normally read The New York Times, but someone brought this article to my attention, published October 5, 2006 by Tyler Cowan, who writes from The New York Times: ``When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the past 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States. Three have gone to foreign- born scientists working in the United States, and just seven have gone to researchers outside the country.'' That is American exceptionalism. Mr. Cowan goes on to point out that five of the six most important medical innovations of the past 25 years have been developed within and because of the American system. Comparisons with other Federal programs such as the VA system are frequently mentioned. It must be pointed out that a restrictive formulary such as employed by the VA system would likely meet significant public resistance because of the near-universal access of the most commonly prescribed medications under the current Medicare prescription drug plan. Some studies have estimated that nearly one-quarter of the medications available under the current Medicare plan would disappear under that restrictive formulary system. The fact is the United States is not Europe; we shouldn't try to pretend we are Europe. In fact, most of us don't want to be Europe. American patients are accustomed to wide choices when it comes to hospitals. They are accustomed to wide choices in physicians and to wide choices in their pharmaceuticals. Because our experience is unique and different from that of other countries, this difference should be acknowledged when reforming either the public or the private health insurance programs. The irony of the situation is that after 40 years, many Congresses, many Presidents have tried to add a prescription drug benefit. When Medicare was first rolled out, it was kind of an inconvenience if they didn't cover prescription drugs. But they only had penicillin and cortizone, and those were interchangeable, so it didn't really matter. But over the years, as American medicine advanced, it became a critical, a glaring lack of having the prescription drug benefit covered. That is why it is ironic that a Republican president working with a Republican Congress, Republican House, Republican Senate passed meaningful and needed Medicare reform that included the prescription drug benefit, and it happened on the floor of this House at 5:30 in the morning, November 22, 2003. Dr. Gingrey and I were here and very proud to have been part of that. One last thing I need to mention, and it is a public service, it is a safety tip from someone who has been here only a short time. But I want to remind my colleagues that recently The Third Way, a leading progressive policy think tank has circulated a memo warning those seeking to make changes in how Medicare pays for prescription drugs provided under part D of the program do so with an abundance of caution. I might remind my colleagues, back in 1988, when the then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dan Rostenkowski, enacted a significant long-term care benefit that cost seniors a great deal of money. He was met with concern and consternation and in fact could not drive his car away from the town hall meeting that he convened shortly after costing seniors so much money with that benefit. The important thing, and I want to speak specifically to the new Members who are here on the other side of the aisle, don't let this happen to you. Don't try to improve on a Medicare program that is popular with the seniors and meeting their health needs. Seniors will resent having fewer choices that cost more under Medicare part D merely to score political points with your new Speaker by repealing Medicare's noninterference clause.