Mr. Chairman, we on the Minority side look forward to a productive Congress that resolves many issues left unfinished in the last Congress. As previous Congresses have shown us, in order to be productive, we must act in a bipartisan fashion. Of the major laws enacted by the last Congress, such as the Food and Drug Amendments, all were passed with bipartisan majorities.

Unfortunately, the early days of the 106^th Congress suggest that the need for bipartisanship has been largely ignored by the Republican leadership. In an act of defiance of the will of the American people and the November election results, the leadership has established a majority advantage on this Committee that is unfair and unprecedented.

Despite the fact that Democrats won nearly 49% of the seats in the House, we are being given just over 45% of the seats on this committee. This spread of 3 ½ % is the highest differential in the last 50 years.

The ratio on this Committee of Republicans to Democrats is 29-24. If we switched one Majority seat to a Minority seat, and made the ratio 28-25 the Republicans would still have a greater majority on the Committee than they would in the House.

In only one Congress was there a ratio so unfair that you could switch a Majority seat to a Minority seat on the Committee and still maintain a greater majority percentage in the Committee than in the House. That unfair ratio was the one established by the Republican majority in the last Congress, when a 28-23 ratio should have been 27-24.

The American people who elected a Democrat to represent them are entitled to the same rights as those who elected a Republican.

Mr. Chairman, the issue is about more than numbers. It is about fairness, and how this committee will operate. By maintaining an unfair majority in the Committee, I see three consequences, and all will be bad:

First, it may make it easier to pass bills without bipartisan support. These bills will only create partisan gridlock when they reach the Floor.

Second, it will be easier for the Majority to block many popular bills, such as the Patients Bill of Rights, that have broad support in the House, including the support of Republicans.

Third, it will encourage those of us in the Minority to use the House Floor, rather than the Committee, to amend legislation, because our numbers are fairer on the Floor.

If bipartisanship is to be realized on this committee, we also must have greater cooperation in developing an agenda for this committee. I read with interest your recent speech, which you have posted on the website, in which you lay out your agenda for this committee. I regret that we in the Minority were not consulted in the establishment of that agenda.

I am not going to comment on each of the bills discussed in your agenda. Many are left over from the last Congress. We supported some and opposed others. I am less concerned over what is in your agenda than what was left out.

In particular, I was disappointed that I could not find any mention of the Patients Bill of Rights. This bill had over 200 cosponsors, and when Dr. Ganske and I offered our bill on the Floor, it received bipartisan support.

While we no doubt have to deal with various technical subjects in areas such as telecommunications, we need to focus our attention to issues that matter most to the American people and affect their daily lives. In addition to the Patients Bill of Rights, I would suggest we act on bills dealing with improved safety for imported food products, reclaiming our cities with Brownfields legislation, increasing consumer protections in a host of issues such as telephone slamming and investor security, and establishing trade policies that ensure that the Asian financial crisis and dumping will not threaten American workers.