Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on your election to chair this Committee. In a year when I have heard the term bipartisan used more than ever, you are certainly, uniquely qualified to be Chairman. You have served with Members on both sides of the aisle, and I have had the pleasure of working with you on numerous issues. So today, we on this side of the aisle wish you the best.

The talk of bipartisanship has unfortunately not been mirrored in action in this young Congress. To the contrary, the first day of this Congress was a sad example of raw partisanship that will profoundly affect our efforts in the next two years. First, the Republican Conference unilaterally decided to transfer the longstanding jurisdiction of this Committee over securities and insurance to the Banking Committee. Second, it chose to continue its practice of denying the Minority a fair share of seats on this Committee.

As I said on the House Floor, the decision to transfer this jurisdiction was regrettable. This Committee has a proud history of ensuring that our securities markets operate fairly and that investors may be confident in their protection. Our markets are the envy of the world, and their performance over the past decade, and indeed over the past 60 years, is proof that we have done our job well. Now the oversight of these markets will be entrusted to a committee which is best known for presiding over the savings and loan fiasco.

One can ask why were there no hearings on this decision, as there were when the House considered changes in energy jurisdiction in 1980. Why was there not even any opportunity for discussions with the Minority as there was in the mid-1980's task force on Committees?

The answer is unfortunately all too obvious. The decision was based on internal Republican politics.

The unfair Committee ratios have now continued into this Congress. Please, I do not want to hear a refrain that "Democrats did it too." I want to put that to rest with a chart we have prepared. It compares the majority percentage on the Committee to majority percentage in the House. As the chart shows, the variance in the percentages were never more than two percent during 40 years of Democratic control.

In contrast, in three of the last four Congresses under Republican control that differential has been over two percent, and in the last two Congresses it is over three percent – the highest in the last 50 years.

There is much more than mathematics at stake. Many observers may have been surprised that our Republican colleagues did not join us on January 3^rd to vote against stripping our Committee jurisdiction. But now we learn that four of the Members most affected by the loss were placed on the Financial Services Committee as well as retaining their jurisdiction here. The unfair forced ratios do not permit us to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that these iniquities will not be soon forgotten, and you can be assured they will be repaid.

Having said this, I want to reiterate that the work of the American people will always come first to us, and we are more than prepared to work with you on all measures.

In the last Congress, we did just that in passing the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act which had the support of 68 of our Republican colleagues, led by our colleagues Charlie Norwood and Greg Ganske. It seems ironic that it was exactly because we had bipartisan support for the bill that we were unable to get a markup in this Committee. We hope this is not the case this Congress and that we can get an early markup of the bill.

Similarly, we look forward to working with Members on your side of the aisle to a true voluntary prescription drug benefit to all of those on Medicare.

I note that our Republican colleagues have chosen to return to the name Energy and Commerce Committee, which I believe has some symbolic value. The term "Energy" was dropped from the title of our Committee in 1995 when the Republicans took over the House. At that time, they made it very clear that they did not think that the Federal Government had any business in energy. Indeed, in that Congress and the following two Congresses, with the cosponsorship of the Majority Leader and Majority Whip, Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Department of Energy and to sell off our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I recognize that the Chairman of the Committee and the Subcommittee have not supported that bill, and I look forward to an opportunity to address our energy needs once again, instead of playing defense against attempts to abolish the Department and cut its funding. The last comprehensive energy bill to pass this Committee was 1992, when we passed the Energy Policy Act unanimously.

Certainly there are many other bills on our agenda for the Committee. You and I, Mr. Chairman, have introduced a variety of telecommunications bills together. We must rededicate our efforts to ensure individual privacy – from medical privacy to financial privacy to Internet privacy.

We need to find the middle ground on environmental matters, such as Brownfields legislation and interstate waste. We know that Members on both sides of the aisle want action in those areas, and we should not let them be held hostage to other more controversial changes of law.

Finally, a few last thoughts on bipartisanship. First, bipartisanship means a partnership – a full partnership, not a junior partnership. We can agree at times to disagree, but if we are seeking common ground we must approach it as full partners. And second, there must be respect restored to the Committee process. We worked on a bipartisan basis in the last Congress on a nuclear waste bill only to see the Leadership ignore our work and bring a Senate bill to the Floor, which the President had vowed to veto and he did. We worked on a bipartisan bill to restore cuts to Medicare and Medicaid only to find that the key provisions we Democrats had worked for were dropped from the bill that went to the House Floor – a bill that was negotiated solely among Republicans.