Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, just a few words in closing. We talked about Engineers' Week in the previous suspension resolution. I was just listening to my good friend, Rush Holt, talk about the importance of making sure that we encourage people of color and someone like Dr. Julian and many more like him to get an opportunity. I am sure it must have been awfully difficult back in those days, and actually in 1961, that was when I was a student at Georgia Tech, and there were literally no African-American students at school. I don't remember any at that time, and that was just, what, 46 years ago. It is unbelievable. But, thank God, you know, times have changed; and certainly to learn about Dr. Julian, I didn't know of him until my colleagues on the majority side, on the Science Committee, brought forward this resolution. I am honored to manage for the ranking member, Mr. Hall, on this side of the Science Committee and to get to know more about the life of Dr. Percy Julian, talking about the work he did in developing and manufacturing a process for the production of cortisone. Madam Speaker, I can really appreciate him in regard to that, because just yesterday morning, I was lying on an operating table getting cortisone injected into my arthritic neck, and I feel better already. I will say, Thank you, Dr. Julian, for that discovery, and I appreciate it very much. But it is an honor to pay respect to this gentleman. I am pleased in a reading of his life that, unlike a lot of other people who do great things, and they get honored 25 years after their death, and everybody else seems to capitalize on their discovery, the fact that he was not only honored in his lifetime by the National Academy of Sciences, but also was able to get financial remuneration for his work in the sale of his company to a big pharmaceutical, I think it was Smith, Kline & French or one of the major pharmaceutical companies back in 1961 purchased his company for $2.1 million. Well, that is great, and I am very happy that occurred and happy for him and his family. It is great to have these good bipartisan opportunities, Madam Speaker. I want to ask all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I know all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to support this resolution.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, as my good friend and colleague, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, has already stated, House Concurrent Resolution 34 honors the life of Dr. Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in organic chemistry, research and development. Dr. Julian identified and synthesized, and my trusty assistant had to tell me how to pronounce it, physostigmine. I should know that from medical school. Dr. Julian, though, synthesized that, and it is a drug used to treat glaucoma. I think we all know about glaucoma and the ravages of that, particularly with our elderly, more recently to improve memory in Alzheimer's patients and as an antidote to nerve gas. He also made great advances, Madam Speaker, in synthesizing the drug known, as we all know, as cortisone, and making it affordable treatment back then for arthritis, and of course, it is used for that and many other things today. In addition to his glaucoma and arthritis treatment contributions, Dr. Julian's impressive achievements also include the invention of a soy-based fire extinguishing foam used on Navy ships during World War II, various improvements in paints and coatings while employed with the Glidden Paint Company, with which he was affiliated, I think, for over 18 years; and he developed a method to filter chemicals in soybean oil to mass produce hormones for medical application. Once again, Madam Speaker, as a retired OB/GYN physician, I know a little bit about the use of hormones for medical conditions. As an African American in the early 20th century, Dr. Julian overcame great adversity to succeed and to make his mark on society. The National Academy of Sciences recognized and honored his significant contributions to organic chemistry when they inducted him in 1973. Madam Speaker, I remember to this day my organic chemistry teacher at Georgia Tech in those 5, 6-hour labs that we had twice a week in addition to all the classroom work. I wish I had had the privilege of being taught by Dr. Julian, but Dr. Cherry was a fine professor in his own right. I encourage my colleagues to give Dr. Julian the same recognition today and support this resolution honoring him and his great life. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I wanted to let the majority know that I have no other speakers requesting time, and I will just reserve the balance of my time for my closing remarks.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the Chair for allowing me to manage the remaining time on our side in the absence of the ranking member, Mr. Hall, who had a very important meeting before the Rules Committee, and I thank the Chair for allowing that. Madam Speaker, I am not an engineer but I went to an engineering school. In fact, I went to one of the very best engineering schools in this country. I am a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech and a heck of an engineer and actually not an engineer but a chemist. I look forward to the next bill as we honor Dr. Julian. But engineering, Madam Speaker, is a profession in this country that is very, very important to us, to our ability to compete in this global economy, and as we all know, we are losing unfortunately far too many engineers to retirement and not replacing them. If we are going to remain competitive in this country, and I know the work of the Education and Labor Committee of this House and Chairman Miller and before him Chairman McKeon and Chairman Boehner, we have addressed these issues in our reauthorization of higher education and how important it is; and I know that Chairman Miller, as we go forward to reauthorizing No Child Left Behind and highly qualified teachers and special incentives for math and science teachers at elementary, middle and high school levels so that we do stimulate more bright young minds in this country, and yes, many more women than may be traditionally would select engineering as a professional track, as a career, because this is the only way we are going to be able to compete in this global economy. I love sports, Madam Speaker, and I know we all do and we honor sports teams all the time up here, whether it is basketball, football, hockey. You name it, we are doing these resolutions, but I like to see more and more of this kind of activity where we are supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineering Week with H. Res. 59 to say, look, what is really important in this country is not games. Games are fun and games are a diversion, but this is about life and the success of our individual young students and, indeed, our country. So to have an opportunity to stand here and have the closing remarks on supporting H. Res. 59, I commend the majority and my friend Representative Lipinski and others that have brought this, Representative Johnson and other members of the Science Committee. I think this is a wonderful opportunity to salute our engineers and the profession. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, just a quick point. In these appropriation bills that come to the floor under regular order, each one of the 13 separate appropriations bills came to the floor with an open rule, an open process.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the carve-out, but it probably specifically applies to the gentleman, the peach from Georgia. But in any regard, the main point that I would like to make, and maybe my colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky and my good friend from the Keystone State Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania, have already mentioned this, but if Congress takes no action, and that is what the Countdown Crew is talking about in these 1,433 days leading up to January 1, I think, 2011. But in 2007, in fact I think this has already occurred, but we can do something about it because tax day, April 15, is, thank goodness, 3 months away. But taxpayers in States with no income tax will not be allowed to deduct their sales taxes from Federal income tax if we don't make a change. And we are talking about Representative Conaway's great State of Texas, a highly populated State. We are talking about the great State of Florida. We are talking about Tennessee and other States. And this is significant, because citizens in those States pay no income tax, no State income tax, but pay huge sales tax to fund their State government, and that will go away if we don't do something about it. In 2007, I think the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned this, the exemption for the alternative minimum tax will decrease from the current $42,500 to $33,750 for a single filer, and from $62,500 to $45,000 for a married couple. In 2009, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard deduction for a single individual decreases from 200 percent to 174 percent, further discouraging couples from entering into the great sacrament of matrimony. And in 2010, the section 179, Small Business Expensing Cap, will decrease from $100,000 to $25,000. I heard my colleague from Kentucky, Representative Davis, talk about this just a minute ago; and he made the comment that most of the jobs in this country, and that would include those 7 million new jobs that have occurred since 2003, in fact more new jobs than the European Union and Japan combined, most of those 7 million new jobs are created by small business men and women. And this section 179 which allows them to write off $100,000 in the first year for capital improvement, buying a new piece of equipment, indeed, expanding the size of their operation so they can hire new people, if it goes down t $25,000, you are going to see, just like a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage, you are going to see jobs lost, and all of a sudden that 7 million number is going to start trickling down. It has been mentioned that the child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500. And listen to this, my colleagues: on marginal rates, if this has not already been mentioned, and even if it has, it probably deserves repeating, the 35 percent bracket will increase to 39.6 percent; the 33 percent bracket, 36 percent; 28 percent bracket, 31 percent; 25 percent, up to 28 percent; and, worst of all is the 10 percent bracket will increase to 15 percent. And not to mention capital gains going back up to 20 percent. Dividends, again, double taxation on dividend. All of these things are going to really hurt this economy. And while maybe under our majority leadership there are a lot of areas in which we could have done better, I truly believe, and I think my colleagues here tonight would agree, we could hardly have done better than the 2001 and 2003 tax cut package, many of which I just enumerated, including finally trying to get rid of the double taxation of the death tax, the estate tax. This is what Republicans have done. This is what this President has done. And this has resulted in 7 million new jobs. Instead of an estimated cost to the revenue of $1.3 trillion over 10 years because you made these cuts, guess what: within 2 years we have run the revenue, I think, and my colleague from Texas knows these numbers better than I do, but something like $275 billion more revenue because of the tax cuts. I have said this a number of times on this floor, and maybe the folks at home watching on C-SPAN know this, but in 1960 Democratic President Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up drastically; in 1980, President Reagan, Republican President, did the same thing and the revenue went up. And of course that is the case that we have here today. Unemployment rate across the country, 4.6 percent. In my State, where we have actually, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we have actually lost a lot of jobs here recently because both General Motors and Ford have shut down plants that have been in Georgia for a long time, but our unemployment rate is just barely above 5.1 percent, and we are growing jobs in other areas, small businesses primarily as I said earlier. So to be here tonight to talk about this, talk with the Countdown Crew why this is so critical, because we know the Democratic majority has already said it. But this issue of PAYGO that they have put in the rules package, it is an absolute farce. It doesn't even look like the PAYGO provision that the then-ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt from South Carolina, that what he proposed was that there would be no point of order waiver allowed; and yet in this new rules package that they proffered in the first week of the 110th, they allow that. So that at any point if PAYGO is violated, then they can simply in their Rules Committee waive that point of order. Or if they don't want to appear hypocritical and they don't waive the point of order, then whatever is done on the Senate side and comes back as a conference committee, they waive all points of order. So to have a really meaningful PAYGO provision, then it needs to have the force of law. And I will conclude by pointing out the double standard here. What the Democrats would consider a tax cut and the expiration of these tax cuts as something that has to be offset, but they would not consider the extension of a program that expires, that has a sunset. Let's say as an example, and I think this is a great program and I hope we continue it and maybe even make it better, but as an example of the hypocrisy of PAYGO, take something like the SCHIP program which was authorized 10 years ago and we spend about $5 billion a year on that program. It is scheduled to sunset in June, I think, of 2007, this year. And I am sure it will be reauthorized, but that additional spending will be outside of PAYGO rules. But yet when we have these tax cuts that expire, if we, the Republican minority now, want to continue those great tax cuts for the reasons that the Countdown Crew has enumerated here tonight, then that would be considered a new tax cut and would have to be offset. It is so hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. I think it needs to be said over and over again, and I want to come become and join my colleagues as often as we can to talk about this, because American people need to understand. With that, I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding, and I am proud to be here tonight with the Countdown Crew to talk about an issue which typically you would think or you hear said many times that our physician colleagues across this country are not real good business men and women. But as my colleague, the CPA from Texas, just pointed out, they better darn well become good business men and women.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my former chairman on the Rules Committee for the time. And I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolution, with some degree of sadness, because I certainly have great, great respect for the representatives of the territories and the District of Columbia. They are sitting here on the floor and speaking, and they are great Members. But I have to oppose this because I think that indeed, Mr. Speaker, it will be ruled unconstitutional in the final analysis. And I know that the Democratic majority in the first 2 weeks, in the 100 hours, with the Six for '06 legislative agenda, the bumper sticker issues that were poll-tested; if you took an issue like this and you said to the American people, We are about to grant voting rights to the members from the territories that do not pay Federal income taxes, and these votes can raise your taxes, and they don't pay Federal income taxes, I think that the poll on that would be at least 90 percent in opposition. So if you are going to do things on a poll-driven agenda, you would not be doing this. I think that it may end up being a moot point, Mr. Speaker, because voting in the Committee of the Whole, giving the Members that right, it may never occur. It may be a moot point, because with these closed rules and no regular order, there may never be any votes in the Committee of the Whole. So I regrettably rise to oppose this. I think it is absolutely wrong. But I have great respect for my colleagues from the territories and the District of Columbia.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share one of the many stories of bravery from our Armed Forces stationed in Iraq. I want to tell you about Navy Petty Officer Dustin Kirby, a native of Hiram, Georgia, a skilled Navy corpsman attached to the 2nd Marine Division in Iraq. Petty Officer Kirby was injured by sniper fire outside of Fallujah on Christmas Day. I had the honor of visiting him and his family at Bethesda Naval Hospital earlier this week, and I was deeply moved by his courage and dedication to the defense of our Nation. From my visit, it was clear Petty Officer Kirby had touched many lives. In fact, while we visited he got a phone call from his fellow troops overseas. His wife, Lauren, his parents, Jack and Gail, his brother and sister, all shared with me their praise of his bravery and resolve. Mr. Speaker, it is because of soldiers like Petty Officer Dustin Kirby that I know we will achieve victory in Iraq. The dedication and determination of our Armed Forces is what protects our Nation every day and what will ultimately help deliver security and freedom in the Middle East. I ask that my colleagues join me in commending Petty Officer Kirby for his service.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of delivering a knockout punch in Iraq, stabilizing Baghdad, securing freedom for the Iraqi people, and dealing a blow to terrorism across the Middle East. There has been far too much politicking on this issue. Let me remind my colleagues that Iraq strategy is not about the legacy of Don Rumsfeld or General Abizaid or even President Bush. It is about 23 million Iraqi people. It is about the citizens of the United States of America. It is about the future of the Middle East, and it is about the 6 billion people on this planet who desire to live without the fear of radical terrorism. We can achieve victory in Iraq. In the past we have underestimated the intensity of the death squads and the sectarian violence. Now we will confront them head on by ensuring we have enough coalition and Iraqi troops, not only to clear pockets of resistance, but to hold them. Mr. Speaker, our President and combatant commanders are ready to deliver the knockout blow in Iraq. This is not the time for Congress to tie one hand behind their backs. We must be in this fight to win, and I support our drive to victory.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.

Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. 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.