Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act of 2009. I want to thank the majority in both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee for working with the minority. This is one of those rare instances in this Congress when there has been bipartisan cooperation and the result is a bill that both sides can support. The bill itself is an example of what Congress should be about. It is an authorization bill with a finite authorization--in this case, 5 years--that authorizes the transfer of satellite signals to home viewers who cannot get cable or over-the-air broadcast signals. The industry today is much different than it was 20 years ago when we first authorized the Satellite Home Viewer Act, and this bill reflects that. As we are transitioning to digital television and high-definition television, this bill takes those technical advances into consideration, which I think is a good thing. There is one provision in the legislation that is nettlesome from my point of view. We have adopted a provision that I opposed in committee that forces the DISH Network to carry high-definition signals for public broadcast stations. I'm not opposed to public television being broadcast in high definition, but I don't think it's the end of the world if DISH chooses for right now not to carry those signals because they're engaged in an upgrade of their base and won't be able to do so in their business model until 2013. So congressional intervention in this bill in that case is something that I wish was not in the bill. There is a chance, however, that the parties will negotiate and this provision of the bill will become moot by the time the bill moves to the other body. With that said, Madam Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I want to compliment Ranking Member Stearns, who's worked very hard on it, and the staffs on both sides of the aisle for their hard work, and I would hope the House will pass this bill at the appropriate time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I'd like to put into the Record a statement from the vice chairman of the American Medical Association on March 20, 1997, where they went on record before the Ways and Means Committee subcommittee supporting the current system. And now, I understand and I accept what Subcommittee Chairman Stark said, that mistakes have been made, and I think, in hindsight, both sides can agree that a mistake has been made. It is my opinion, and I think most of the Republicans would share this opinion, that this is not the solution. When all you do is change which formula gets reimbursed, either primary care or specialist, but you use the same underlying formula, the same lack of enforcement, that's not, in my opinion, a fix. So respectfully, I believe that we should defeat this bill and then work together. I do sense some bipartisanship on this floor. Let's work together to come up with a real fix. It will not be easy. It's not easy to come up with $350 billion. It's not easy to allocate that. It's not easy to change the formula to something that more accurately reflects the costs of practicing medicine in the modern era. But, we can do it. This is not the solution. I hope we'll vote this down. As has been pointed out, this bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate. This is an act, in my opinion, of paying off a political debt to the American Medical Association for endorsing the larger health care bill several weeks ago. Please vote ``no.'' Statement of Thomas R. Reardon, M.D., Vice Chair, American Medical Association Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas R. Reardon, M.D. I am a general practitioner from Boring, Oregon, and a member of the Board of Trustees for the American Medical Association (AMA). On behalf of the 300,000 physician and medical student members of the AMA, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today regarding Medicare physician payment issues. A wide range of experts have independently concluded that, despite Medicare's clear success in improving the health status of our elderly and disabled citizens, the program cannot be sustained without fundamental restructuring. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund faces bankruptcy in five years or less, and Medicare's current overall expenditure growth cannot be sustained. Medicare faces a much more serious long- term problem as the ``baby boom'' generation ages and the number of workers paying taxes for every Medicare beneficiaries will decline from 3.9 currently to only 2.2 in the year 2030. The high growth rates for many of the services are due to a combination of factors, including increased beneficiary demand for new services, flaws in payment rules which encourage high volume growth in some categories of service, insulation of most beneficiaries from cost considerations, and ineffective approaches to cost control. However, as the chart below indicates, physician spending growth is well below the rate for any other major sector of Medicare, and well below overall Medicare growth. The AMA is pleased that the President's 1998 budget proposal explicitly recognizes this fact. We are also pleased that the Administration's budget supports the development of innovative provider sponsored organizations in order to offer greater choice to Medicare beneficiaries. We believe these types of options hold the promise of enhancing beneficiary choice while controlling Medicare's costs. The AMA also supports the President's investment in preventive health care to improve seniors' health status by covering colorectal screening, diabetes management, and annual mammograms without copayments, and by increasing reimbursement rates for immunizations to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries are protected from pneumonia, influenza and hepatitis. Unfortunately, the Administration's budget primarily adopts the strategy of cutting physician and other provider payments in hopes of getting more services for less money. We believe this approach will ultimately divorce the Medicare system and its beneficiaries from the mainstream of American medical care, while postponing the major restructuring needed for Medicare's long-term survival. In the meantime, the long-term problems will only grow larger, requiring more draconian and expensive solutions. AMA's Proposal For Medicare Transformation The AMA has a plan which addresses both the short and long- term problems with Medicare, while preserving the bond of trust between a patient and physician that makes medicine unique. The AMA's Transforming Medicare proposal is based on the idea of a competitive market-driven system as the best option for the future of the Medicare program because it offers more choice to senior citizens and the disabled. We must give the patient both the opportunity and the responsibility to make wise prospective choices of physician and health plan, with the reasonable opportunity to change either if they prove unsatisfactory. Our plan would modernize traditional Medicare, eliminating the need for Medigap, while preserving the security and quality of care beneficiaries now receive. It would create a new MediChoice option, which would provide a broad menu of health plan choices for Medicare beneficiaries to choose from, including medical savings accounts and provider sponsored organizations. And finally, it would ensure that a healthy Medicare is available for future generations. The AMA would welcome the opportunity to discuss our Transforming Medicare proposal with the Subcommittee in greater detail at an appropriate forum. Improving the Physician Payment System The Administration's 1998 budget proposal targets $5 billion in savings over five years from refinements to the Medicare physician payment schedule. In particular, the Administration proposes moving to a single conversion factor (CF) for the payment schedule, and replacing the current Medicare Volume Performance Standard (MVPS) update formula with a Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. Under the Administration's budget proposal, the overall payment update for 1998 would be set at 1.9%, yielding an overall CF of $36.63 in 1998. With the move to a single CF of $36.63, surgical service payments would fall by 10.6% compared to 1997 levels, while primary care payments would increase by 2.4% and other service payments would increase by 8.2%. The payment reductions for surgical services are further exacerbated by the implementation of resource-based practice expense relative value units scheduled for 1998, as discussed below. The AMA has consistently sought a return to a single growth standard and conversion factor for physician services. We adopted this position well before any indication of which services would benefit from multiple standards. At our Annual House of Delegates meeting in 1996, AMA policy was modified to adopt a compromise that responds to two realties. First, because moving to a single conversion factor could lead to large single year cuts for some services and specialties, we support a transition of as close to three years as possible. Second, because we also recognize that one of the purposes of a transition is to allow those who face cuts time to adjust, and that there has been ``fair notice'' of a shift to a single conversion factor, our House of Delegates voted that the ``clock should start running'' on such a transition on January 1, 1997. In addition to moving to a single conversion factor, the AMA supports replacing the MVPS system of updating physician payments. There is widespread agreement that the current method of updating physician payments, the MVPS system, is fundamentally flawed. The Congress, the Administration, and the Physician Payment Review Commission (PPRC) have all proposed replacing the current MVPS update formula with a sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, which uses real per capita gross domestic product (GDP) to adjust for volume and intensity. The Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget proposes implementing an SGR formula, with the volume target in the SGR formula initially set at growth in real per-capita GDP plus one percentage point. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring of the proposal apparently failed to yield the targeted savings of $5 billion in savings from the Medicare fee schedule, and the volume allowance in the SGR was reportedly reduced to GDP+0. In general, the AMA supports implementing the SGR approach as a needed correction for the MVPS. Fundamentally, the question for policymakers is determining the level of annual spending growth for physician services that best balances patient care needs and the federal budget. Under the current MVPS physician update formula, the projected Medicare payment level for physicians is a steep actual decline, while hospital and other provider payment rates go up, as the chart below indicates. Although these non-physician services are unlikely to see their full projected increases, their budget savings will be charged against this rising baseline, while further savings from physicians require even steeper cuts. Budget reconciliation for Medicare should reflect the fact that physician spending is under better control than any other major Medicare segment, and that the budget baseline already assumes steep annual payment cuts. Physician practice costs, as measured by the Medicare Economic Index (MEI), continue to rise while physician reimbursement under Medicare is projected to fall. Physicians are only asking for the opportunity to have Medicare payments keep up with the costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries, and are willing to accept the challenge of maintaining volume growth at current low levels. While we believe that MEI is the appropriate goal for physician updates, we understand that budgetary constraints may not presently allow for a full MEI update for physicians. Physicians are willing to do their part to put Medicare's fiscal house in order, as we have repeatedly done in the past. Physicians, who accounted for 32% of combined physician and hospital Medicare spending from 1987 to 1993, absorbed 43% of Medicare provider cuts over the same time. We would be willing to accept GDP+2 under an SGR system as a temporary measure, if there were assurances that this could be increased to cover MEI once the necessary Medicare savings were obtained. In contrast, under GDP+O as the Administration proposes, physician payments would continue to fall well below MEI, as they are projected to do under the current MVPS system. Given a new SGR, with a realistic growth allowance, we could also support a new ceiling on positive MVPS adjustments, which would provide direct financial benefits to the federal budget if actual volume is below target. Moreover, the federal government receives a very real additional benefit--the ability to pay for the payment rates needed to maintain the viability of Medicare fee-for- service out of reduced service volume. At the same time, like the PPRC, we believe it essential to maintain the current 5% maximum payment reduction from the MEI (increased from 3% by OBRA 93) and to reject Administration proposals to lower the floor to MEI minus 8.25%. Resource-Based Practice Expense As mentioned above, many physicians face additional extreme payment reductions due to the implementation of the resource- based practice expense in 1998. The Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 requires the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to implement a ``resource-based'' practice expense component of the Medicare fee schedule by January 1, 1998. That is, the payment for this component-- which represents over 40 percent of the payment for physician services--is to be based on the actual expenses incurred in delivering each service. Currently, the practice expense allowance is derived from a formula based on the prior reasonable charge payment system. The AMA supports resource-based practice expenses so long as they reflect actual practice expenses, but is seeking a one-year extension of the implementation date. The 1994 legislation said that HCFA should ``recognize the staff, equipment, and supplies used in the provision of various medical and surgical services in various settings.'' HCFA contracted with Abt Associates to conduct a two-part study of 3,000 physician practices expenses. When the survey was pulled back due to poor response rates, HCFA was left without adequate data to meet the intent of the law. HCFA is relying primarily on data derived from clinical practice expert panels, or CPEPs. Early review of the recently-released CPEP findings suggest that they contain a number of errors. HCFA has even rejected certain direct costs that its expert panels found were part of the cost of surgery when doctors supply their own staff and supplies in hospital operating rooms. The AMA and medical specialties are working to identify and correct those flaws but more time is needed. Those who want to adhere to the current January 1, 1998, deadline argue that any problems can be corrected later through a refinement process similar to the one used when new work values were implemented in 1992. The AMA believes this is an inappropriate comparison. HCFA invested nearly three times as much time and money on the design of new work values as it has spent to revise practice expense values. Whereas thousands of doctors were surveyed to come up with the work values, in the end, there was no broad survey of practice expenses. Simply put, with work values, the product being tested was much further along in the development process than is now the case with practice expense values. Opponents of an extension also maintain that there is no point in waiting another year because the demise of the indirect cost survey shows that it will never be possible to collect this information independently. We believe that with another year, HCFA could develop alternative relative values that bear some relationship to actual practice expenses. There would be adequate time to validate and correct the CPEP data. Better indirect cost allocation methodologies could be developed and tested. Missing data could be collected, perhaps through an expansion of existing surveys. The cuts HCFA projected in January are so extreme that they would nearly eliminate practice cost reimbursement for some procedures and specialties. Many inpatient surgical procedures and two specialties could suffer cuts of more than 80% in their practice expense values, and at least 40% in their total payments. Under HCFA's projections, payments for many surgical procedures would fall below Medicaid levels. Thus, there is good reason to fear that if Medicare makes deep cuts in its payments for complex procedures, doctors performing these services may find that they can no longer afford to accept Medicare patients. In addition, even some of the specialties which seem relatively unscathed in HCFA's projections could actually experience significant cuts if other payers pick up the new Medicare values because the projections do not show the impact of cuts in procedures usually done on patients under age 65. To impose such deep payment cuts based on such spotty research seems certain to undermine physician support for the

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I still control, please.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Since my friends on the Democrat side won't explain their procedure, their bill, I am going to try and do it, and if I am wrong, I am sure that they will correct me. Current law, we have one SGR formula. It is based on GDP and inflation. It is not based on any kind of medical index. Whatever that is perceived to be each year, that is the amount of increase we can pay our physicians. All physicians get the same increase. Under this bill, they say if you are a primary care doctor, you get the formula plus 2 percent. If you are a specialist, you get the formula plus 1 percent, but they don't change the formula. The formula is the same as it is under the current law, and they don't change the enforcement mechanism. The enforcement mechanism is the same as it is under current law; i.e., Congress has to vote to either accept the cuts or to not accept the cuts and provide a temporary fix. As I understand it, that is their fix. Now, if I am wrong in that, I want my friend Mr. Waxman or Mr. Pallone or Mr. Rangel or Mr. Stark to tell me how I am wrong.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to yield 1 of those 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm not used to dealing with a warm and fuzzy Pete Stark. I have to admit that was a very good speech. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Michigan from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under the rules that we operate where we alternate back and forth, is it allowable for myself to make a rebuttal and then recognize the gentleman from Indiana? Or do I have to do one or the other?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am going to recognize myself for 1 minute to comment on my friend from Maryland's comments. Then hopefully the Chair will let me recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, under Republican control, every bill that we brought to the floor, except one bill, was paid for either in that bill or in our budget resolution. There was one exception to that where we did not pay for it. So that is answer number one. Answer number two, this is not paid for. Under a bill that my friends in the majority passed in July, they say we're going to start pay-for, but it doesn't count for the doctors fix, it doesn't count for the alternative minimum tax, and it doesn't count for the estate tax. But once we do all that without paying for it, then the pay for will kick in. So in that sense, my good friend from Maryland is accurate. But in the sense of this bill, he is totally inaccurate. This bill is not paid for. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I ask unanimous consent that of the 30 minutes that I control, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), control 15 of those minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the only fix that's in this bill before us is ``the fix is in.'' This is nothing more than a repayment to the American Medical Association for endorsing the larger health care bill that was on the floor several weeks ago. There is not one dime of pay-for in this bill. It is a wave the magic wand, erase the accumulated deficit of the last 10 years or so in the SGR formula, and let's kick the can on down the road. The bill is so narrowly construed that we couldn't offer in the motion to recommit a real pay-for because this bill doesn't have a pay- for. This is nothing more than a political payoff to the American Medical Association. Republicans support really fixing the SGR system, but we think it ought to be done all at the same time. So we would hope that we would vote against this sham today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 1 minute. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee: Where is the fix? There is no fix in this bill. They split one formula into two, but there is no reform in it. It is not based on medical expenses. It is not based on anything. There is no automatic reduction. It simply erases the current deficit in the account, has two formulas instead of one, and then 4 or 5 years from now, we will kick the can down the road again. If there really is a fix, let's have somebody on the majority side explain it. You can't explain it because it is not there. I yield 1 minute to a member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Spirit of Waxahachie Indian Marching Band for officially being recognized as one of the top 10 high school bands in the State of Texas. This achievement represents the highest marching award that the Waxahachie Marching Band has earned in the school's history. This is ``the little band that could.'' With only 122 members on the field, they were the smallest band in the UIL 4A State Band Contest to make the finals. And from all accounts, their performance of their 2009 marching show entitled ``A Kinetic Mind'' encompassed every meaning within ``kinetic''--constant motion, fast-paced, and high energy, literally electrifying the crowd inside the Alamodome. Now let me explain how big this accomplishment actually is. There are hundreds of Division 4A bands in the State of Texas, and in November, only 26 qualified to compete for the title. The Spirit of Waxahachie Indian Marching Band finished eighth and I couldn't be more proud of what these students accomplished on the field. But it is what they do in the classroom and in the community that makes them even more special. These teens begin practicing and training over the summer, dedicating several hours each day to learn the music and routines required to achieve excellence. This alone is quite a feat when you consider just how hot it is in Waxahachie in August. But these are first and foremost students whose determination and dedication not only applies to the band program, but to their academic and community efforts as well. Once they leave class and band practice ends--these teens keep working. A majority of them are involved with community service projects and volunteer with organizations all over the city. These students, their directors and their supporters have truly exemplified their title as The Spirit of Waxahachie. I am proud to represent them here in Congress and once again congratulate them for proving that hard work and dedication lead to great accomplishments. The Spirit of Waxahachie Indian Marching Band includes: Directors: Rich Armstrong--Head Director, Reggie Cook--Assistant, Kendra Ray--Assistant, Dan Francis--Assistant, Donnie Owens--Assistant, Johnny Young--Percussion Instructor, Layci Dagley--Percussion Instructor, Denise Armstrong--Color Guard Instructor. Drum Majors: Tiffany Neal, Haley Nutt. Section Leaders: Scott Tipton--Drumline Captains, Tiffany Hinman-- Color Guard Captain, Ashley Maass--Flute, Brittany Haines--Clarinet, Kaitlyn O'Brien--Saxophone, Ryan Popp--Trumpet, Carissa Needham--Horn, David Hale--Trombone, Trey Speer--Baritone, Mikey Kirton--Tuba. Band Members: Samuel Allelo--Euphonium, Eline Andreasen--Bb Clarinet, Jack Ansell--Trombone, Sarah Arnold--French Horn, Maria Baez--Trumpet, Katy Behning--Trumpet, Michelle Boggs--Color Guard, Logan Bowers-- Drumline, James Bridges--Trumpet, Jessica Cadena--Bb Clarinet, William Carter--Tenor Sax, Jerrin Castillo--Drumline, Jake Chastain--Trombone, Kyle Clayton--Drumline, Ethan Craig--French Horn, Alyssa Cupp--Bb Clarinet, Ben Davis--Front Ensemble, Maddie Devore--Drumline, Jesse Dillinger--French Horn, Justin Donelson--French Horn, Kendall Drew-- Tuba, Dayvetta Dvorak--Bb Clarinet, Tedra Edmonson--Color Guard, Jacob Engel--Front Ensemble, Taylor Engel--Trumpet, Stephen Erickson-- Trumpet, Travis Featherston--Drumline, Marrisa Gallegos--Color Guard, Miranda Galvan--Color Guard, Dan Gandara--Front Ensemble, Hannah Gentry--Color Guard, Richard Gonzales--Trumpet, Ellen Gordon--Color Guard, Sydney Graf--Color Guard, Victoria Guajardo--Flute, Tiffany Haines--French Horn, Allison Hale--Flute, Sha' Quita Hall--Color Guard, Shane Hartis--Front Ensemble, Andrew Harwell--Trumpet, Zachary Hatchel--Trumpet, Marieta Hawkins--Flute, Kelsey Hayes--Bb Clarinet, Jackie Hernandez--Color Guard, Jack Herrington--Euphonium, Jacob Hill, Drumline, Hayli Howard--Tuba, D'Layni Huff--Drumline, David Hummer-- French Horn, Cameron Ingram--Flute, Lauren Johnson--Drumline, Kallen Jones--Trumpet, Brady Kelley--Alto Sax, Kaitlynn Kerbow--Flute, Chelsea Kimberlin--Bb Clarinet, Sarah Kinney--Bb Clarinet, Albreshia Lawrence-- Flute, Nicholas Lopez--Bb Clarinet, Melinda Louque--Tenor Sax, Toni Madrid--Alto Sax, Kimberly Mares--Color Guard, Hannah Marshall-- Trombone, Melissa Martinez--Alto Sax, Manny Mata--Euphonium, Caleb McCutchen--Front Ensemble, Karis McGrew--Color Guard, Kaci McMahan-- Drumline, Josh McMurray--Trumpet, Reagan McMurray--Euphonium, Alex Meade--Bb Clarinet, Michael Mederos--Trumpet, Max Mills--Tuba, Carlos Monge--Alto Sax, Ashley Moon--Flute, Tanner Morehead--Euphonium, Faith Morgan--Bb Clarinet, Lauren Moritz--Flute, Yousef Muwaquet--Trombone, Laura Nottingham--Flute, Tiffany Oglesby--Alto Sax, Nathan Owens--Tuba, Jordan Palmer--Alto Sax, James Perkins--Euphonium, Kelsey Peyrot-- Drumline, Danielle Phillips--Bass Clarinet, Molly Prescott--Color Guard, Marisa Price--Drumline, Dillon Pryor--Front Ensemble, Jeremy Quintana--Trumpet, Scott Quintana--Trombone, Bridget Reid--Bb Clarinet, Craig Renfro--Tuba, Milka Reyna--Flute, Bradley Richardson--Trumpet, Daniel Richardson--Alto Sax, Hannah Ritchie--Color Guard, Marissa Rodriguez--Bb Clarinet, Emily Rolen--Bb Clarinet, Jacque Rosso--Color Guard, Audra Russell--Bb Clarinet, Adrian Salvador--Front Ensemble, Sara Sanchez--Drumline, Jared Schueler--Alto Sax, Dillon Shepherd-- Trumpet, Natalie Shoemake--French Horn, Breanna Simpson--Flute, Taylor Smith--Drumline, Brooke Stembridge--Bass Clarinet, Cole Stembridge-- Trombone, Collin Stephenson--Tenor Sax, Tiffany Sweet--Bass Clarinet, Rance Taylor--Trombone, Jenna Thomas--Trumpet, Corey Troxell--Trombone, Felcia Tunson--Color Guard, Amanda Unarut--Percussion, Christina Unarut--Color Guard, Tanner Underwood--French Horn, Samuel Vasquez-- Alto Sax, Sarah Warren--Euphonium, Wiebke Wenholt--Color Guard, Reed White--Trumpet, Kora Woodard--Front Ensemble, Taylor Wright--Drumline, Andrew Zimmerman--Trumpet, James Zimmerman--Trombone.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Frank Wolf, for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who represents Omaha, Nebraska, the home of the College World Series.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the former FBI man from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was listening to my distinguished friends on the majority raptly. I now yield 1 minute to one of our doctors, physicians, the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, the Honorable Michael Burgess, also a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the sixth Frelinghuysen to represent a district from the Garden State of New Jersey, the Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona, Congressman John Shadegg, a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who represents the entire State.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), one of the strong pro-life leaders in the U.S. Congress, a combat veteran of Vietnam, and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.