Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. If the Chair will let me finish my question.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I have another question. So we are going through this whole process of debate, and let's just hope that this is not an empty promise or empty rhetoric for the campaign, this idea of negotiating price controls, which certain of us have this hunch that maybe it is just empty rhetoric. But to confirm that it is not empty rhetoric, Congressman Price, I know you are very much in tune with the fiscal issues of this House and this Nation. Certainly there is going to be some benefit to the taxpayers and to consumers if the Democrats pass their plan. Do you have any facts on that?

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Congressman Price, thank you, Dr. Price. As an expert on medical subjects and as someone who has treated thousands of patients over his career and saved hundreds of lives as well, a humble doctor would not say that; that is why I must say that for you here tonight, Tom, because you have done a fantastic job of leading our agenda as someone who is very engaged in these medical issues that are so important to all Americans, these large health care issues that affect every American. Today we have had a lot of debate here on the floor about minimum wage, about raising the minimum wage. But what is omitted from the Democrat's 100-hour agenda and from this debate about raising the minimum wage is a matter of access to health care. It was a Republican Congress that instituted Medicare part D, and which provided a prescription drug benefit for the first time for seniors. There was a lot of debate before Congressman Price and I came to Congress about the structure of that and how it is going to work. We were not a part of that debate because we were not here yet, but we were affected by it as Americans and as policymakers here in Washington D.C. But looking back at that record, Congressman Price brought up a very, very strong point. As they are going through the committee process, now close to 4 years ago, 3 to 4 years ago, the Democrats wanted to guarantee that all Americans would pay $35 per month for their insurance premium to get the Medicare part D prescription plan. Well, they wanted a guarantee of $35, and they said that the Republican plan was going to be too costly, too expensive. The Republicans said, you know, what if we actually put this out into the free market and provide this plan through market-based forces; in essence saying you can compete between different plans, different companies can offer this prescription drug benefit, and so they go out and they compete for seniors' business? That means a couple of different things. Instead of waiting in line at the Social Security office for the government, because there is no competition because we are government, waiting for hours, or waiting on hold for hours with a government agency, you have these individual plans. These businesses want to keep the business of seniors so they provide better customer service. But the additional thing, rather than some government bureaucrat sitting here in Washington, D.C., saying you can take Lipitor but not Crestor to reduce your cholesterol numbers. Well, as a nonmedical expert, I don't know the details of how these medications work, but those are the types of people, without a medical background, making the decisions on who has access to those types of medicine. But the plan we put in place is a little different. The plan we put in place said, we are going to have competition in the marketplace. These plans say to seniors, we will give you choices, choices. Do you want to pay $35 a month and have a choice of any medication you want, period, or do you want to have a more limited plan with fewer choices but you will pay less per month? But seniors get to make that choice, not some bureaucrat sitting here in Washington, D.C., and not your Congressman. Because, unlike Dr. Price, there are very few medical experts here in Congress that can make those decisions. As my colleague would say, it is not even a good idea for a doctor in the House of Representatives to dictate what an individual patient could receive in a certain part of Georgia or a certain part of North Carolina; much less, it doesn't work. One-size-fits-all doesn't work. But what the Democrats put out here on the floor or what they are putting out, I should say, later this week, is they want to institute price controls, what they call negotiating for Medicare part D.

Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman has a wonderful point, because we had this meeting which I was happy to attend with you just the other day with Secretary Leavitt, who, as those listening and watching tonight, Mr. Speaker, very well know, he is the Secretary of the Health and Human Service Department here in Washington, D.C. He would be in charge of negotiating these price controls. Now, what is interesting is you are talking about giving more power to someone in government. They normally like that. They normally seek that out. As we all well know, it is human nature. And his answer is pretty simple: I know we will not be able to get any benefit out of this and I know that it will have a harmful effect on the program and access to consumers' choices and access to the medical pharmacology that they need. So he said he does not want this. It is not necessary. And he concurs with the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, analysis of this; and the fact is that CBO says the government could not negotiate a lower price than what the free market is already doing. So the facts are out there. And I am led to believe with the facts you just discussed, Dr. Price, that this is pretty much a sham. It is a political issue used by a select few here in Washington, D.C., for political purposes. Look, I know, I know, you know, politics in Washington, oh, what a shock. But the emptiness of this rhetoric from the majority side is quite glaring, and in fact I am led to believe that it is really a red herring. Let's make this the big evil issue. When in fact going back to the Clinton administration they had the very same language on how to get the best price from government purchasing pharmaceuticals. And so they are going to a different direction in order to win a political issue and they are going back on what they advocated just a few years ago in the Clinton administration and even what they supported in committee here in this House just less than 4 years ago.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you so much again, Congressman Price. Again, it is an honor and a privilege to be on the floor with two physicians who have this hands-on knowledge of how a very complicated government program works in terms of people. And I think that is what we need to be concerned about as policymakers, is the impact that we have on citizens and the choices and options they are able to have, the cost out of their pocket both through tax dollars and through their premium payments every month through the Medicare part D premium. What we have to do in this House as a minority party now is to make sure that what the Democrat majority does is honest and has integrity, and I believe that this issue is a red herring used for political purposes. It is a sham. It will have little to no effect, and any effect that it does have will be negative for seniors, and it will be negative for our taxpayer dollars, and it will have a long-term negative effect on our pharmaceutical industry in this Nation where we have developed wonderful cures for such complex ailments that have perplexed generations of Americans and citizens in this world. So what we have to do is make sure that we focus on the price to consumers, the price to taxpayers, and the choice and options that consumers are able to have in the free market. So let us not get off on tangents here. That is what this issue is all about, price and choice. So let us stand on the side that provides our constituents with the best options available, the most options available, at the lowest price possible. So, Congressman Price, I thank you for your leadership with the Official Truth Squad. It is a great, great day when you are able to take the House floor and I am able to watch you in action making the points that need to be articulated to the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to serve in this House and be able to carry out those agenda items that are going to help Americans and also stop the bad things that will hurt Americans that some in this Chamber offer, some more frequently than others. Thank you, Congressman Price, for your leadership not just on the prescription drug benefit issue and medical issues but your overall leadership of holding this majority party, the Democrat majority party, accountable for their words, their rhetoric, and their actions. Thank you, Congressman Price.

Mr. McHENRY. It is an excellent point. We are talking about negotiating. Who is better at negotiating, somebody sitting at a desk in Washington, D.C., employed by the government, or those health care experts employed by the companies offering the plans? I would submit that the free market will always negotiate better prices than some government bureaucrat can ever do. And the fact is what the Democrats are going to push will raise premiums for individual members or individual constituents. So, market forces. The Democrats want to say $35 a month, everyone has to pay that for their Medicare part D benefit. Well, you know the market forces have created a premium average which you said that gets lower and lower. The earlier numbers from a few months ago, the average is $24, and here now we are hearing that it is closer to $22 on average nationally. So we have a couple things, by the way, that free market conservatives insisted on this plan being written. It says we will have a choice, meaning individuals. Our individual constituents, our individual seniors that we represent will have that choice with their plans and thereby have a choice over the medications that they can access. The second thing is lower prices, meaning that taxpayers don't have to pay extra money and seniors don't have to pay extra money. It is a wonderful bargain, it is a great idea, and this is something that we need to talk about, not some sham or idea that is a political red herring. We need to talk about the choices that seniors are given and the price savings that they receive.

Mr. McHENRY. The fact that you said just strikes me as so funny. Think about negotiating with the Post Office and the IRS. As an average taxpayer, think about the IRS. They say you are going to do this or we are going to send you to jail. Talk about compelling individuals to submit. Now, here is what I think is interesting about this is like negotiating with the IRS: You will pay the price no matter what, and there is only one consequence, you going to jail or you paying. But with this plan, the market forces will have a ripple effect on long- term cures and long-term medical technologies coming on the market, and I think that is the devastating impact. It is not just a jail sentence. It is actually a sentence for all Americans to have less access, less choice, and less long-term cures and benefits from the wonderful cures that the pharmaceutical industries have created over the last two generations.

Mr. McHENRY. I have got a question, Congressman Price, from a medical perspective. Could you give an example? Because we are talking about not just price but choice and the opportunity for patients to make a decision with their medical experts, their doctor, their own doctor about what is the best pharmaceutical for them to take. Could you give us some examples?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a critical point that is being overlooked in this debate on the minimum wage. We need to talk about the people that this minimum wage increase will be a barrier to their employment, for example, the physically, emotionally and mentally handicapped in this country. I have in my district, in Cleveland County, Cleveland Vocational Industries, a community-based organization. What they do is they train workers with disabilities to fulfill certain assembly line packing and labeling projects, what some of us would call menial labor or very simple tasks. But it is a very positive thing. It is a great way to train and employ people that otherwise cannot be trained and employed. What is going to happen is these are about 8 percent of the total minimum wage earners in this country, those with disabilities. What that is going to do is harm them in their ability to get contracts with businesses. This is a very nice idea, to raise people's wages, but the impact it is going to have among the least among us will be that they will simply not have a job. I think that is being lost in this debate, and I think that is what we need to be concerned about. Let's talk about the facts about the minimum wage. That is what is lost here. This is high-minded rhetoric. What the Democrat majority wants to do, Mr. Speaker, is use other people's money to pay other people. Well, that is a very nice thing to do, a nice offer, a very nice thing, to write a check for somebody else. All right. Let them pay somebody else. That is a nice obligation that we are passing on, this unfunded mandate. Eighty-five percent of minimum wage earners in this country are teens or adults who live alone or second earners; a married couple, one goes and works part-time. Eighty-five percent of them fall in those categories. So they are talking about making a minimum wage on this and providing for a family of 10, or whatever. It is just empty rhetoric and crazy talk. So let's talk about affecting and helping people through training and access to health care and support the Republican alternative.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice occasion at the end of the week to wrap up what we have been doing and talk about how we have been active this week, but before I start, I would like to yield to the distinguished former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my colleague from California (Mr. Hunter), to discuss points that he illuminated in his first 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. McHenry, and again, I thought it was important, as we move into this new era and my great friend Ike Skelton takes over the Armed Services Committee to reflect on where we stand and what we did in the last Congress. Again, just to reiterate, we culminated a 40 percent pay increase for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the United States Marine Corps, and the National Guard in this last 8 years. Along with that, we increased family separation pay, which is the pay a family receives when the loved one is separated, maybe is in theatre, or maybe is deployed far around the world in this global war against terror. We increased that from $150 to $250 per month. We increased combat pay. We increased a number of our insurances. And also, Mr. Speaker, we increased TRICARE coverage for National Guard personnel and for their families. Along with that, we did something that was really the special project of the outgoing readiness chairman, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, which was to bring in to full flower this privatization of housing on military bases across the country so that military wives and family members could move into really great housing. I have to tell you, in visiting bases across America, it has been heartwarming to see these military families coming into wonderful new housing that often has an entertainment area in maybe a common area with a pool and tennis courts and reading rooms in the center of one of these housing projects where the families can go for entertainment and take their children for good quality time. So the quality of life for America's military families has been greatly increased over the last 8 years. Now, what have we done in terms of firepower? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that beginning with this administration and meetings that we held with the Secretary of Defense and with the President, one concern that I had, and a number of members of our committee had, was the amount of what I would call precision firepower. That is the ability to deliver a smart bomb or a precise system. Instead of, for example, having to drop 100 bombs on a bridge to knock a bridge out, to be able to send a smart bomb in, hit one strut on that bridge, and bring the bridge down. We all know now that this is the age of precision firepower, and we wanted to greatly expand our precision firepower because that gives the United States the capability to project enormous power around the world when we have to. So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to report to the people of the House, to our great colleagues and to the American people that we have in the last 8 years more than doubled, more than doubled our precision firepower. A lot of that is manifested in what we call LGBs, or laser-guided bombs. A lot is manifested in what we call JDAMs, or joint direct attack munitions. But for our adversaries, that means that America has the power now to send in more than twice the firepower in precise places, at precise targets with enormous effect. That is very important for America's troops and for America's strength. Now, Mr. Speaker, also people have asked what have we done in terms of enlarging the size of the two ground elements of America's military, the primary ground elements, the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps? We have increased the size of the Marine Corps now from 175,000 personnel to 180,000 personnel. We have increased it right at, in fact, exactly 5,000 Marines. And the last time I checked, we were something like 100 Marines under that limit. But we have gone from 175,000 Marines to 180,000 Marines. We are right at that exact number, a few people short, but we have those Marines actually on the ground, deployed, showing up for roll call each day in their particular position in the war against terror. So we have increased the size of the United States Marine Corps. Now, we may need further increases, but at least at this point we have a 5,000 troop increase. With respect to the Army, we took the Army end strength from 482,000 to 512,000. That is a 30,000 person increase in the United States Army. Now, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee have done an analysis parallel to the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and we feel we may have to increase the Marine Corps and the Army further, and you can see those recommendations manifested in that report. But we have actually increased the Army and we have increased the size of the U.S. Marine Corps. Now, if you ask, and a number of people have asked since Ronald Reagan made that speech in 1983 and said, in essence, we are entering the age of missiles, and the United States, to secure its people, has to have the ability to shoot down incoming missiles, a number of people have asked us and asked regularly where are we in terms of missile defense. And I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in the history of the United States, we actually have a very small, very limited, but nonetheless very real missile defense for the first time. It is manifested in the interceptor missiles that we have in place on the Pacific coast and Alaska that could handle, on a very limited basis, a rogue missile or several coming into the United States. Now, some people may say, well, that is not much. And my answer is, that is more than we have ever had in the history of this country. We have deployed a missile defense and we will be building on that deployment. So, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important to lay out some of the things that this Congress has done and that this Armed Services Committee has accomplished for the American people. A 40 percent pay increase for our troops, increasing the size of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, putting together the first missile defense in the history of the country, and more than doubling the precision firepower of our armed forces. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the President will be making a statement very soon about this adjusted policy on Iraq, and I just wanted to once again tell my colleagues the recommendation that I have made. I know a lot of us have made recommendations to the President and to the Secretary of Defense. Right now, there are 18 provinces in Iraq. And in half of those provinces, nine of those provinces, there are virtually no attacks taking place. They average less than one attack a day. In those quiet peaceful provinces, there are 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers located and stationed. Twenty-seven battalions is a lot of soldiers, Mr. Speaker. It is a lot of firepower. It is a lot of personnel. My recommendation to the President and to the Secretary of Defense for the last several months, and I hope that this has been a part of their conversation, I have urged them, and a number of other of my colleagues have joined with me in urging them to take the 27 Iraqi battalions that we have trained and equipped and move them into the battle. Now, that means that the Ministry of Defense is going to have to give orders to those battalion commanders and those brigade commanders in the quiet peaceful sections of Iraq and tell them to saddle up their forces, get them on the trucks, and move them to Baghdad. They need to do that. That should be nonnegotiable. It should be a requirement by the American war fighting commanders that cannot be delayed, cannot be finessed, and cannot be put aside. That is something that should be nonnegotiable, especially against the backdrop of the enormous American effort that has given birth to this new government in Iraq. So I know the President is going to come out with his suggested policy soon, but I thought it was important to lay out this fact, that right now we have 27 Iraqi battalions in quiet areas which can be utilized in the fight, can be put into the fight. In my estimation, their value in an urban setting, especially one like Baghdad, where speaking the language is important, and where knowing the communities is important, their placement in those positions before we move any additional American troops into those urban situations is, I think, something that we should do, and that we should require of the Ministry of Defense of Iraq. I want to thank Mr. McHenry for letting me come out and talk a little bit about these issues and take some of his valuable time. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's allowing me to come out and say a word or two.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting moment in our Nation's history, an interesting moment indeed, with a new Democrat majority coming to these hallowed halls of Congress. The American people spoke in November and they wanted a change. As someone who was formerly in the majority party, now in the minority party, I respect the power of democracy to change our Nation and change the direction of our Nation in important policy areas. I think some of that is going to be beneficial to our economy, and other proposals that the new Democrat majority are putting forward are going to be hurtful to our economy and to our national defense and our family security. But I think it is important that we talk today about some of the early actions of this new Democrat majority. During the campaign season over the last few years, the last 2 years, the Democrats campaigned on openness and accountability. They campaigned on many things. In the opening days of Congress, we have seen a far different reality than what they campaigned on over the last 2 years. It is disheartening to me as an American citizen and someone who is hopeful and optimistic about this new Congress, hopeful that we can work on a bipartisan basis, and I think it is important that we talk about these opening day actions and the actions they have taken over the last 2 days of this new Democrat majority. The first action and the first course of business of this new Congress was to pass a very closed-off process for consideration of the so-called 100-hour agenda of the Democrat party put forward by the new speaker, Ms. Pelosi of California. What we see in this closed-off package is far different than when they campaigned on. They campaigned on an open process, open and fair debate, a dialogue across the aisle, so that we could work in a bipartisan way for the American people. The first action they took was to lock out all dissenting voices, even within their own party, but also among the Republicans represented here today. The Republicans represent 140 million Americans here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Their first action after campaigning on openness and bipartisanship was to close out dissenting voices, to close out the amendment process. I was surprised by this, because looking at then-Minority Leader Pelosi's words, I believed that Minority Leader Pelosi would be a very open Speaker Pelosi. What we see with her words and actions, and I have a visual aid here to that effect, now, Speaker Pelosi, then Minority Leader Pelosi, said a few things about the minority having rights here in this institution. Then-Minority leader Pelosi said in 2004, her Minority Bill of Rights includes fair principles. ``There is a very excellent chance that the Republicans will be in the minority next year, and what I am saying is this is the way the House should be conducted, in a bipartisan way, and whether he,'' meaning Speaker Hastert at the time, ``agrees to it or not, this is the course of action that I will take.'' What is striking to me is the date on that is June 2004. We are in the second day of a Democrat majority and we have, instead of a Minority Leader Pelosi, a Speaker Pelosi. What is striking here is ``that is the course of action that I will take.'' Those are the Speaker's words. To that end, I took the very letter that Minority Leader Pelosi wrote at the time and we filed that legislation and we offered it here on the House floor yesterday, and it was flatly rejected. Every Democrat to the person voted against it. It is striking to me that in their first day as a majority, as a Democrat majority, they are already going back on the words that they campaigned on, they campaigned on in 2004, 2005 and 2006. What did they say in 2005? Then minority leader Pelosi said, ``Mr. Speaker, I implore you to end the repeated abuses of the rules by the Republican majority to ram legislation through in such a secretive and unfair manner.'' That is 2005. What we see today and yesterday by this new Democrat majority is that they have a secretive process, because it says that we cannot offer any amendments on the legislation that we will soon be able to see. We can't even see the legislation in their 100 hours. They have not let us or the American people or even many in their own party see the legislation which we will be voting upon and for which we gave initial approval to today. That is very striking to me, especially after the language and rhetoric used in 2004 and 2005 by Speaker Pelosi. ``Additionally, in 2006, so 3 years running, more than 2 years ago, I first sent Speaker Dennis Hastert Democrat proposals to restore civility to the Congress. I reiterate my support for those proposals today. We must restore bipartisanship to the administration of the House, reestablish regular order for consideration of legislation and ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the minority. The voice of every American has to be heard.'' Now, 2004, 2005, 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi talked about openness and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi, the first act of office, goes completely back on these very words. This rhetoric did not become reality on the first opening hours of the Democrat majority. I am hopeful, as all Americans should be, hopeful that there is openness tomorrow. As Americans, we are an optimistic people. I think it would be amazing, in fact, I think we would all be amazed, if their second act was for openness when their first act, their first principle, was closing off debate and closing off any input from rank and file Members of this body and the people that we represent at home. What I would say is that beyond just the words, we need to look at the values and the principles of this majority. We offered this minority bill of rights that then minority leader Pelosi proposed, and it simply says that legislation should be considered in the committee process and we should have full open debate and discourse. In essence, we outlined what all fifth graders in this great country are taught about the legislative process here in the House of Representatives, that a bill is filed, it is sent to committee, it is amended and debated and compromised there, it goes to the floor and goes through that same process, when in fact that is not always the course of operation of this House. So the problem is that it is not simply about the process. The issue today is that the process corrupts the policy. When you stack the deck on the outcome, you corrupt the policy of this House Chamber and the laws of this land. So process and policy are intertwined. When one is corrupted, so is the other. With the Democrats shutting down debate at a critical moment in our Nation's history, we have to question their judgment. There are a number of proper proposals they are putting forward in the initial 100 hours of debate here in the House of Representatives. One thing that is very important to Americans and our national security is the 9/11 Commission recommendations outlined in the fall and over the last few years. We have heard them very well. The Democrats campaigned that they wanted to and would, if they were given the majority, fully implement the 9/11 recommendations. No matter whether or not they were good public policy or not, they are going to implement all of them. Well, as it turns out, the Washington Post reported on November 30, 2006, that ``With control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly, a wholesale reorganize of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the Nation's intelligence agencies.'' It is striking that just days after the election, they are already going back on their proposal to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Now they are saying that they will implement some but not all. It is kind of surprising, because the American people heard in an almost unanimous voice from Democrats that they were going to implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I didn't hear candidates out there and Members of Congress on the Democrat side saying some, but not all. No, they said all 9/11 Commission recommendations. Only through press reports do we know what this legislation says. They have not given this out, other than their allies on K Street and the lobbying community. But they haven't given this out for the American people and for the press and for all Members of Congress to see. So we have some concerns about this, because there are many of us who want to offer perfecting amendments, to make sure this policy is right and secures our Nation in a proper way. Thomas Kean, who is a former distinguished Member and Governor of New Jersey, was a cochair of the 9/11 Commission. He called these important overhauls in the congressional process of oversight and intelligence vital. What we have to do is make sure that the Democrats uphold their promise. We don't want broken promises. We don't want them to campaign on good ideas and be corrupted by an ugly process here that results in bad policy. National security is, of course, of key and utmost importance, and I am glad they are at least bringing that up in the first 100 hours. Additionally, many of us in this Nation are concerned about research and ensuring that we have medical cures that comfort, that our government policy upholds not just ethical and moral research, but lifesaving research. Next Thursday, from press reports, the Democrats will vote to enact legislation to expand Federal taxpayer funding for research that destroys human life and human embryos, and they call this stem cell research. Well, while I don't support the destruction of human life, I do support stem cell research, adult stem cell research that has led to cures. Unfortunately, due to the process that they have here in this new Democrat majority, we are not going to be able to offer amendments to ensure that life is not destroyed and that human embryos are not destroyed in this process of research. But if you look at embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell research, there have been wonderful cures coming out of adult stem cell research, but no cures coming out of embryonic stem cell research. And we are not even questioning whether or not embryonic stem cell research should come about. It is a question of whether our taxpayer dollars should be used to destroy human life, or what many Americans believe to be a destruction of human life. Even if not all of us agree on whether or not life should be protected at its most basic and precious moment, we should all agree that we shouldn't have unethical processes and research funded by our Federal taxpayer dollars. In fact, the National Institutes of Health spends roughly $600 million per year on stem cell research already, including $40 million for research involving certain types of embryonic stem cell research. But the type of research they conduct does not destroy human life. Additionally, nearly 100 million of it is for nonhuman embryonic stem cell research. So this is already being done, yet it is a nice rhetorical device, just like the Democrats campaigning on implementing all the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations and just like openness and fairness. American people like the sound of that. But what is concerning, whether it is embryonic stem cell research, the 9/11 Commission, or openness and fairness, is that it was only rhetoric. The Democrats didn't want to implement it and make it reality here in policy and in law for our Nation. Beyond that, we have another provision that we voted on today, and this is Pelosi's PAYGO legislation. Now, PAYGO is a shorthanded word for pay-as-you-go. It is a nice way that we talk about it here on Capitol Hill. We call it PAYGO. Now, it sounds very good. The American people want us to pay for government policies as we enact them, and so that is a great rhetorical device as well. Pay-as-you-go. Well, what is devilish about this proposal is that it will lead to a backdoor tax increase down the line. As the Wall Street Journal editorial said today: under Pelosi's PAYGO plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be offset by either cutbacks and other entitlement programs or tax increases. This version of Pelosi's PAYGO is a budget trapdoor designed to control expenditures but to make it easier, easier, to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts. That is from today's Wall Street Journal. Now, the fundamental budget problem is not spending too little and taxing too little; it is the fact that right now in our country Federal revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past 2 fiscal years, and that is as a direct result of the economic support and economic growth of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. As the economy grows and more people are employed, fewer people use government services. As fewer people use government services and are making money on their own, they actually begin to pay taxes. When people are paying taxes, revenue to government goes up. It is a basic process. And through this robust economic growth that has come out of these tax cuts, we have had more revenue come into government. So pay-as-you-go is a way for the Democrats to establish later the reasoning to go to the American people and say we need to raise your taxes. Now, I think it is a faulty and flawed policy, because the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have not limited income to government; in fact, what the American people must know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government revenue to the United States Government is the highest it has ever been in the history of our country. The highest revenue of any time in our country's history. Beyond that, actually to say it more broadly, we have more government revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury, your tax dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury. Even after tax cuts, we have the most government revenue in the history of man and the history of the Earth. No government has ever received as much in tax dollars as ours does today; yet, still, the Democrats put a proposal on the floor today that will let them raise taxes later. It is so shocking and so surprising that they would do this in their opening week in Congress. Now, I knew there were tax-and-spenders on the other side of the aisle, and that is a liberal focus, to grow the size of government, increase the revenue to government; but I didn't realize they would do this at the very beginning of their new majority in Congress. I think the American people should be shocked by that. But what this pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal ignores is that all the appropriations we have made in the past, the current government programs that we have will not be under this rule. So we won't analyze the entitlement programs to see where they need to be reformed; we won't analyze existing government programs to see that they are getting the proper result or they are being efficient with their dollars. It will only apply to new spending. So let's look at the 100-hour plan and total up the tax value of it and the spending value of it. And what you see as a result of this plan is pretty simple: $800 billion of new spending in this 100-hour plan. Now, think about that. I think the American people should stop for a second, Mr. Speaker, and think about the fact that in 100 short legislative hours, over just a few days, the new Democrat majority will spend $800 billion. That is shocking. Now, I know that there are these free-spending ways in Washington, and as a conservative I am opposed to that, especially as someone who considers themselves a fiscal hawk. But to spend that much money in such a short period of time has got to strike the American people as egregious, especially when you campaigned as the Democrats tried to in the last election as fiscal conservatives and a party that wants to balance the budget. Yet, they are offering $800 billion worth of new spending in their first acts of office. So how do they get that money to pay as they go? They are going to come to our tax dollars, our personal tax dollars. They are going to ask more from every American. That means that when you get your paycheck, whether you work in my district in Hickory, North Carolina, or Mooresville or in Cherryville, where I am from, you are going to pay more out of that paycheck to fund the programs that the Democrats who are in control of this place want to implement. So the average working man and woman in this country will pay more under Democrat leadership than they will under Republican leadership. Beyond that, this 100-hour proposal completely, completely ignores some of the most pressing issues in our country, certainly ensuring that our troops in the field are funded fully. Now, that is very important. Completely ignored in the 100-hour plan in the Democrat agenda for this Congress. What about entitlement reform? Because, after all, that is the largest section of the budget of our Federal budget, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Very important programs. But we need to make sure that they are fiscally efficient, that they are fiscally sound, and it is clear that they are not either efficient nor sound. So we need to look at entitlement programs, yet the Democrat majority has completely ignored entitlement reform in their agenda. They have completely ignored making Social Security solvent for future generations. And as someone who is eligible for retirement the same year that Social Security goes finally broke, I am concerned about that, and my generation of Americans should be concerned about that as well as all generations of Americans. What else is missing? Well, obviously the cost of litigation on small businesses across this country, completely ignored that, certainly because the trial lawyers I think have helped write the Democrat agenda for this Congress and there is a big difference between what trial lawyers seek and what the average small businessman or the average family doctor in this country seeks. And so they have completely ignored reforming and limiting litigation and the cost of litigation on the American society. Completely ignored that. They have also ignored helping small businesses with health care either through health savings accounts where individuals can save tax free, something that we as Republicans have worked very hard, and free- market conservatives like the idea of people being able to save tax free without Uncle Sam reaching into your savings and pocketing that money; or association health plans where small businesses can come together, link up, and increase their affordability and their buying capacity to give their employees health care. Completely ignored with the Democrats' agenda. In fact, the Democrats came on the floor, some of these that campaigned on the other side of the aisle as helping small businesses, one of their first votes was to vote against letting small businesses pool their resources to buy health care. That hurts. That hurts in the opening days of Congress. Beyond that, they have ignored border security. I think the American people have demanded border security and a sane immigration policy for this country. There are many leaders on my side of the aisle on the issue of border security, and I think we need to engage in that discussion on how we reform our immigration policy in this United States and how we plan to do that. I think most Americans agree that we must begin with the border, to ensure that we have an immigration policy that is enforceable, realistic, and real for this country. So though we are just in a few opening hours of this new Congress, some things are clear. Some things are very clear. The rhetoric that the Democrats campaigned on was good. It was good. The American people supported it. The American people put new Democrats in office, Democrats that campaigned some as fiscal conservatives, others as social conservatives, most certainly as moderates in this last election. But their opening hours, their opening hours go back on those pledges for fiscal sanity due to the high cost of their opening plan and proposals, $800 billion worth of spending in just 100 hours. It goes back on this openness concept. It goes back on fiscal sanity by covering up with this Pelosi PAYGO plan that will raise our taxes later in the year or later next year, certainly tax increases in the future, though. It fully ignores their proposal to fully implement the 9/11 Commission proposals by kind of sort of doing a few of them that they think are politically palatable rather than following through on their promise. It uses a great rhetorical device of stem cell research. But when they come here and they vote, they ignore the cloning issue, whether or not we are funding human cloning, whether or not we are destroying human life. So the rhetoric in the campaign is very much removed from their actions in this new Congress. They also ignore their pledge to work with all sides on issues of importance to the American people, to work in a bipartisan way. They even go back on their pledge and demand for minority rights here in this institution. So we see hypocrisy from the Democrat majority. Many would say it is ironic that you campaign as a conservative, yet come in and govern as a liberal, which we are already seeing in just two days of Democrat control. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are an optimistic and hopeful people. We have a new week, we have a new day coming where the Democrats can change, and I am hopeful that they will, that they will go back to what they campaigned on that the American people endorsed in the last election for bipartisanship, for openness, for national security and the defense of our country, for good strong family values, and fiscal sanity. And when that happens, I will be happy to reach across the aisle and work with my colleagues in the Democrat majority to ensure that these things happen. But until that day comes, I will point out the fact that they are going back on their words to the American people, and I will not restrain myself from calling it as I see it, and I think as the way the American people should see it as well, that in order to govern effectively you have to fulfill your promises, you have to make sure it is not empty campaign rhetoric, that in fact it is a full implementation of the agenda that you sought in the election. I think the American people want change in Washington. I don't think they got change in the last two days, though. I think what you saw with this new Democrat majority is this same type of abuse of power that they had in 1993, in 1992, through the 1980s and the 1970s. The majority may be new today, but the Democrat chairmen are the same as they were 20 years ago, on the larger part of the Democrat majority and for the larger part of the committees that they have organized. And the policy proposals that they offer going forward after this 100-hour proposal will be much the same as they offered in the early 1990s and the 1980s and the 1970s. Those policy proposals are pretty simple: Raise your taxes, weaken national defense, and go the opposite way on family values. But I hope that we can work with moderates on the other side of the aisle, moderates on the other side of the aisle that are willing to look at fiscal sanity, willing to stand up for traditional values and willing to do the right thing for the American people and will work together. I am very hopeful that we will have that opportunity after this 100-hour proposal is done. And hopefully, it will be done quickly.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly appreciate my good friend from California, your friendship in my brief service in the House. It has been wonderful learning from you, and I appreciate your willingness to show national leadership and national involvement as well, far beyond these House walls. Thank you so much for your leadership and friendship.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, on which I have had the pleasure of serving for the past 2 years. And it is ironic that I follow another colleague from North Carolina who is in favor of the Pelosi PAYGO plan that we have before us here today on the House floor. It is unfortunate that it is being offered in a closed rule, in a setting whereupon Republicans cannot offer any constructive amendments or perfecting amendments to ensure that tax increases don't arise out of this Pelosi PAYGO plan. According to the Wall Street Journal editorial today: ``Under her,'' Pelosi's, ``PAYGO plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be offset by either cut-backs in other entitlement programs or tax increases. This version of PAYGO is a budget trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures, but to make it easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask to include the Wall Street Journal editorial from today, entitled ``Tax As You Go,'' for the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007] Tax As You Go Congressional Democrats are dashing out of the gates to establish their fiscal conservative credentials. And as early as today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push through so- called ``pay-as-you-go'' budget rules for Congress. Keep an eye on your wallet. ``Paygo,'' as Washington insiders call it, sounds like a fiscally prudent budget practice: If government spends more on program A, it has to spend less money on program B, and thus budget deficits will be restrained. We're all for that. But when Republicans proposed exactly that budget rule in recent years, House Democrats voted it down. Ms. Pelosi has something different in mind. Under her paygo plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be offset by either cutbacks in other entitlement programs or tax increases. This version of paygo is a budget trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures but to make it easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts. Supporters of paygo claim it will help restrain entitlement spending. It won't. Paygo doesn't apply to current entitlements that will grow automatically over the next several decades. Ms. Pelosi's version of paygo applies only to new entitlements or changes in law that expand current programs. And on present trajectory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps and the like are scheduled to increase federal spending to almost 38 percent of GDP by 2050, up from 21 percent today. Paygo won't stop a dime of that increase. This may explain why one of the leading supporters of paygo is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal outfit that favors far more social spending. Paygo enthusiasts also claim that when these rules were in effect in the 1990s the budget deficit disappeared and by 2001 the budget recorded a $121 billion surplus. Sorry. The budget improvement in the late 1990s was a result of three events wholly unrelated to paygo: the initial spending restraint under the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 as part of their pledge to balance the budget; a huge reduction in military spending, totaling nearly 2 percent of GDP, over the decade; and rapid economic growth, which always causes a bounce in revenues. Paygo didn't expire until 2002, but by the late-1990s politicians in both parties were already re- stoking the domestic spending fires. What paygo does restrain are tax cuts, by requiring that any tax cut be offset dollar-for-dollar with some entitlement reduction. Congressional budgeteers always overestimate the revenue losses from tax cuts, which under paygo would require onerous budget cuts to ``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a political matter, those spending cuts will never happen. First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010. Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender, gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million. Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record $550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally, thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in just two years--without paygo. Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003, it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about returning Republicans to their historical minority role as tax collectors for the welfare state. That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic agenda. Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending discipline while making it all but impossible to let taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be called ``spend and tax as you go.'' The fundamental budget problem here is spending too much, not taxing too little. Federal revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past two fiscal years because of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages. Now, this has led to a robust economic growth for our country; and as a result of that economic growth, we have had higher tax revenues to government. In fact, government revenue this year is the largest it has ever been in the history of man. Not just the history of the United States, but we have more revenue flowing into government. So we have a spending problem, Mr. Speaker. And with this PAYGO trapdoor, the Pelosi PAYGO plan ignores the annual appropriations, and it only applies to new spending. So this is an absolute trapdoor that will lead to tax increases put forward by this new Democrat majority. I urge us to vote this down and to actually have real constructive budget reform.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California for that warm introduction. Today was a historic day for the House of Representatives: A new Speaker, a new majority, and, in their words, a new time in Washington. To use the new Speaker's words, this is about respect for every voice, to work for every American, to seek common ground for the common good. Those are high words and high values that we should seek here in the House of Representatives that all Americans desire in their government. And as a key part of what the Democrats campaigned on in the 2006 election, one of the key tenets was open and honest bipartisan governance. But their first act on this House floor is to push down the throats of this institution a closed rule that closes off debate, that disallows dissenting voices, that simply waves off that open, fair, and honest process. To that end, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will be able to offer this minority bill of rights, the Pelosi minority bill of rights. To use the words of the new Speaker, the minority bill of rights includes guidelines for bipartisan administration of the House and for the regular Democratic order for legislation. The principles are fair and will provide for the full and open debate that the American people expect and deserve. Now, those are not my words. Those are the words of the new Speaker. Then-Minority Leader Pelosi wrote those words in June of 2004. Now, while the new Speaker and I may not agree on much in terms of policy, tax policy, or the policy on national defense, I think we have the same values when it comes to fair and open and honest legislative debate. And to that end I sought to outline her principles and put them into the minority bill of rights. So let us defeat the previous question so that we can vote on this minority bill of rights, the Pelosi bill of rights.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding, again, to restate what is very important about this coming vote on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, we can then have an honest vote on the Pelosi minority bill of rights package. It is a very important thing for us to have an open, bipartisanship debate on opening day of this new Congress, for the new majority to be able to say clearly to the American people that their rhetoric is becoming reality on the opening day of this Congress. For if they do not do that and they do ram down the throats of all Members here on this floor this previous question, then all people will be locked out from offering debates on this House floor; and, from the Republican side, 140 million Americans who voted for our side of the aisle, their voices will be stifled in this process. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members, both Republicans and Democrats to come together, defeat this previous vote, and then we can move on to an open, fair debate on the minority bill of rights, the Pelosi minority bill of rights. That is a fair thing to do.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's quotes are quite illuminating about the rhetoric that the Democrat Members used versus their actions on opening day. Your expertise on the Rules Committee is quite prescient. There are three additional quotes that come to mind from earlier today. In the new Speaker's speech today, her rather elaborate speech today about the agenda for this new Congress, she said three things that are of importance to what we are talking about here. She said first, respect for every voice. That is what their new majority is about. And it is also to work for all of America. And, finally, it is for common ground for the common good. Those are wonderful things and wonderful ideals that this House should live up to. But as my colleague from Georgia said, it shouldn't be simply a speech. It shouldn't simply be rhetoric; it should be reality. It should be the practice of this House to seek common ground to work for all of America, even those that didn't vote for the Democrat majority, all of America, and respect every voice, even if you have an ``R'' beside your name, respect for every idea that comes out of this place so that we can do what is best and right for America. It is not simply about process. I think my colleague from Georgia said that very well. It is not about process. It is about the effects that that process have on public policy and the outcomes. If you rig the process, which I think there are countries around the world that rig their voting process, that is not true democracy. Fairness and openness, that is what brings about the best result for all of America. It is not about a Democrat idea or a Republican idea; it is about doing what is right on a bipartisan basis for the American people.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Congressman Price. I appreciate your leadership, friendship, and support in our first term in Congress and as we begin our second. And I appreciate you pulling together the Official Truth Squad and taking this from an idea and actually making it into reality. After all, that is what this legislative process and indeed this House of Representatives is all about, is taking an idea, a powerful idea and making it happen for the American people. To that end, the Official Truth Squad is here to make sure that the American people know what happens here in these hallowed halls of Congress. And I think it is important, what you point out today from the Democrat leaders' words and actions on their opening day and the lead-up to taking control of this new Congress. It is indeed a new day here, and the American people know that. And I think what the American people see is that the Democrats worked very hard in the campaign and were rewarded by taking control of this wonderful Congress of us, the people's House, and they campaigned on a number of things. But one of the key tenants and key principles upon which they ran their campaigns and the rhetoric they used during the campaign was about openness, honesty, and fairness. This openness idea, it is a wonderful thing to talk about and I think it is something that I stand for and I know my colleague from Georgia does as well, and we have worked very hard during our times in public service to provide this for the American people. But it was their number one tenant in the campaign, their number one principle, openness. Well, on the opening day of Congress, we were hoping as the new minority that this new Democrat majority would ensure openness and fairness. And that is why Congressman Price and I, along with some of my other colleagues, joined together to offer the minority bill of rights. And what the minority bill of rights is, in essence, is what all fifth graders in America are taught: It is the legislative process that, when you file a bill in this House, it goes to committee or subcommittee, and it is heard, it is debated, it is amended, it is crafted, and there is compromise in the process. All sides, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, liberals, they are all heard. And then it comes to this House floor, where it again goes through that very same process of compromise and input. Well, that is what the minority bill of rights is all about. And what we offered as the minority bill of rights and what we offered here on the House floor today with our two procedural votes today, was ensuring that these principles, which then minority leader Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker Pelosi, advocated just 3 years ago. So what we offered was, in fact, the Pelosi minority bill of rights. It is not simply a Republican idea, it is actually the minority leader, now the Speaker, her ideas on the way this place should be governed. And when we offered it here on the floor, it was flatly rejected. So it became clear here on the opening day, the opening hours of this new Democrat majority, the campaign on openness, that they really advocated closed process and they only want their ideas, their few ideas heard. They don't want any input or any dissenting opinion. The bottom line is that Speaker Pelosi thinks that Minority Leader Pelosi was wrong. I think some people call that hypocrisy, some call it ironic to campaign on that. I think it is ridiculous on the opening day of Congress, after a new majority is elected on openness, that they cram down the throats of all the Members of this House a closed rule that does not allow for input, does not allow for amendment, doesn't allow for full, open, and fair debate, on their opening day of their first act as a majority. That is what is so egregious about what we saw here on the House floor. In fact, this type of abuse has never happened before in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives, the idea that you put a rule out, a rule forward that closes off debate on an unknown bill. We can't even see the text of the bills that they are offering in their 100-hour proposal. They have closed it off from minority view. Simply because I have an ``R'' beside my name, they believe that I am not able to view it. Well, I have got news for them. I have got news for this new Democrat majority. 140 million Americans voted for a Republican for U.S. Congress. They are not simply silencing a Member of Congress from North Carolina or a Member of Congress from Georgia; they are silencing the constituents who elected me. That is not fair. That is not openness. That is not a new way of operating. In fact, it is a very old way of operating that the Democrats used when they were in the majority before. So I think that we should set aside the first day and be hopeful for a second day and a new beginning. We like second chances as Americans. Let's give the Democrats a second chance for true openness, input, and dialogue in a bipartisanship basis; not simply use it as a rhetorical device during the campaign, but to actually govern that way, to actually do it, make sure it happens here on this House floor, not for us as Members of Congress, but for our constituents and for the American people.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, Congressman Mike Oxley served the 4th district of Ohio for 25 years with great distinction. Much can be said about a man who dedicates himself to the People's House for a quarter- century. Perhaps the most telling example of his magnetism and leadership can be seen in the number of staff members who dedicated themselves to serving Mr. Oxley during his distinguished tenure. The longstanding members of Mr. Oxley's staff--Jim Conzelman, Debi Deimling, Bonnie Dunbar, Bob Foster, Phil Holloway, Tim Johnson, Kelly Kirk and Peggy Peterson--have served the chairman a combined 250 years among them. This is an amazing feat, given the fact that Capitol Hill is synonymous with high turnover rates and the frequent shuffling of staff members. I believe this speaks to the statesmanship Mike Oxley exhibited over his congressional career. His colleagues--just like his staffers--recognize his character, which inspires loyalty and perseverance.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, a curious section of the Iraq Study Group final report which was submitted to the President yesterday mentions the so-called Palestinian right of return demand, and says that it should be addressed in the negotiation process to stabilize Iraq. I am concerned that many in the region, including groups opposed to Israel's very existence, will take this mention in the Iraq Study Group report as support of a full so-called right of return. The United States should not be seen as supporting any policy that will fundamentally alter Israel's safety and security. The so-called right of return would jeopardize the future of Israel and benefit the enemies of peace and freedom and enemies of the United States. I strongly urge the President and this Congress to remain steadfast in our support of Israel and offer policies designed to enhance, not weaken, our most important and trusted friend and ally.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Absolutely. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be on the floor today to have the opportunity to pass this important financial services legislation that Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I were able to work together on on a bipartisan basis. Now, I must confess this new era of bipartisanship I have somewhat questioned with the recent election results. I am not overly optimistic about the coming bipartisanship. I think it must be and most likely will be more rhetoric than reality. But I am grateful to be on a committee where we have had some level of bipartisanship and cooperation, although imperfect; but on this legislation, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and I, as freshmen, were described in the U.S. Today as the ying and yang of the freshman class, the most liberal and the most conservative members of the 109th Congress, the new Members for it. And Debbie and I set out then to work on some legislation together, and I am grateful that we were able to get that done here in the waning days of the 109th Congress. The legislation that we have before us today is the Financial Netting Improvement Act, which makes a number of technical changes to the financial contract safe harbor provisions for the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and other Federal insolvency laws. The netting provisions reflect years of work within the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, Treasury, Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the FDIC. This is the result and the fruits of that long labor. The amendment on this legislation from the Senate is very minor, and we are able to accept it in the House. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's guidance on signals. I will make sure, going forward, I smile or wave when I am being sarcastic. Or the gentleman, who will be the chairman of my committee in the next Congress, I will simply just speak when I am being sarcastic on your committee in the next Congress, if that would be all right. Actually, before I close, I want to give one final story. Before I got on the Financial Services Committee, a senior Member told me that with the ranking Democrat from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that if he ever asks you to yield in a committee debate, say ``no.'' And I said, why; isn't that rude? He says, well, you have never been in a debate with Barney Frank, have you? Well, sure enough, 6 months in, I say something and the ranking member asks me to yield. And as a new Member, I mistakenly said ``yes.'' I will not make that mistake going forward. The gentleman is quite able with his arguments, a Harvard educated attorney. I respect his ability to make an argument and to make the opposition look silly. And with that, as the opposition, I would sit down and say, Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. I would be delighted to yield.