Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening, at Nationals Stadium, we had the 47th Annual Congressional Baseball Game. The true winners of the game were the Washington Literacy Council and the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Washington, D.C. area. In terms of the score on the field, in the most thrilling game that I have been associated with in the last 21 years that I have played, coached or managed, in the bottom of the seventh with the bases loaded and one out and the Democrats leading 10-9, Connie Mack hit a dart back to the pitcher, Mr. Baca, who threw home for a force out making two outs. And then unfortunately for my friends on the Democratic side, the catcher overthrew the first baseman allowing two runs to score, the winning run by the speedy Adam Putnam of Florida for a thrilling 11-10 victory. Our MVP on the Republican side was Kevin Brady of The Woodlands, Texas. The class of 1996, which includes Kevin Brady, MVP; Kenny Hulshof, who was our first baseman, Chip Pickering; the third baseman; Jeff Flake, center fielder; Virgil Goode, right fielder; Tom Davis, one of our tricaptains; Pete Sessions, our third-base coach; and Sam Graves who was a pinch runner and hitter, those players in the 12 years that they have played in the game have an 11-1 record, which I think is amazing. I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for attending the game, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer for attending the game, and I want to thank my good friend, Mike Doyle, for his excellent job of managing. It can truly be said that this year, the Democrats had victory in their grasp and took pity on us and allowed us to win one more time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6515. The bill was introduced yesterday. It is on the floor today. That is pretty fast work. No hearings, no committee process. It is primarily a restatement of existing Federal law with a couple of exceptions. It does have a prohibition of any oil that is found in Alaska going anywhere but the lower 48. Chairman Rahall and I had a little debate about that on the House floor earlier this week. I certainly don't have any opposition. It is somewhat meaningless because oil is fungible and it can go wherever it needs to go; but if that is the price we have to pay to get more oil drilled and produced in Alaska, I am actually for that section of the bill. Having said that, this bill is counterproductive if we really want to find new oil and gas because it doesn't open up any new areas. If you only allow drilling where we have already been allowed to drill, for example, in the great State of Texas that I represent, we have drilled over 2 million oil wells since 1901. The probability of finding a major new oil field in Texas today is much closer to zero than it is to 100 percent, because we have already drilled so many wells. Eighty-five percent of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States of America is off-limits. This bill does nothing about that. It says, let's expedite leasing in the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve. Fine, but we can already drill for oil in the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve. What about ANWR? ANPR is to the west of Prudhoe Bay. ANWR is to the east. We think there are 10 billion barrels of oil in a 2,000-acre section of ANWR, 10 billion barrels. Drill 10 wells, and you get 1 billion barrels a well. If we drill on an expedited basis in ANPR, certainly there is oil to be found there, but we can already drill there, and it won't get 1 billion barrels per well. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on the four sides.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I don't have any speakers at this time, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close, and I believe I have 7 minutes, although I don't believe I will take 7 minutes. Madam Speaker, I want to try to at least let the American people know what is going on here this afternoon. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle are for our health care providers. We want our doctors to be fairly reimbursed. We want our hospitals to be fairly reimbursed. We want our pharmacists to be fairly reimbursed. We want our durable medical equipment suppliers to be fairly reimbursed. We want our Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and recipients to get quality health care and have the minimum copayments and out-of-pocket expenses necessary for those services. So we have 435 votes for good health care policy in America. The bill before us is not a good government bill. It is an accountability avoidance bill, in my opinion. It is hard to read exactly what CBO scores this bill, but on subtitle D, provisions relating to part C, section 161, it says, phaseout of indirect medical education, that scores over 5 years a saving of $12.5 billion and over 10 years, $47.5 billion. That's a cut. Now I am told, I can't prove it, but I am told that $20 billion to $25 billion of that is coming directly out of Medicare Advantage. Those are reimbursement cuts to the 10 million seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage. Now the statement has been made on the floor that we are overpaying Medicare Advantage. What happens when there is an overpayment is that 75 percent of that overpayment goes back into the benefit pool for the Medicare beneficiaries that choose that option, and 25 percent goes to the U.S. Treasury. It doesn't go to the insurance companies. Seventy-five percent of an overpayment is reinvested in benefits for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, and 25 percent goes as a savings to the taxpayers who are providing the funds. That sounds to me like a pretty good deal. Now let's talk about the physicians. One of the few good things in the bill is that we are going to delay the physician reimbursement cut of 10 percent that was effective this year. It would have been effective July 1, I believe. That's a good thing. But is there a reform in this package that sets a different formula for next year and the next year and the next year? No. Were there discussions on a bipartisan basis about that? No. Has any effort that I am aware of really been made to fix that program, to fix that fee schedule? No. So what happens on the floor next year? We have a 20 percent cut that will go into effect if we don't do something between now and July of next year. That's not good government. That's, as I said, accountability avoidance. Let's talk about the pharmaceutical system. There is a good thing in this bill, I have to be honest about that. The prompt pay is a good thing. I support that. But the delay of the average manufacturing price reform is a bad thing. Is a bad thing. Now I admit there are some problems with average manufacturing price, about definitions of what's included in the cost and what kinds of costs are included, but that's a technical detail that could be worked out. But to delay a true reform that tries to reimburse pharmacists for the true cost of the drugs, to me, is another avoidance in accountability. Then let's talk about durable medical equipment. GAO says that 10 percent of everything that we pay for durable medical equipment through Medicare is fraud. What we do is delay for 18 months the competitive bidding system that we have been working on for over 10 years. Now it should tell us something that the industry apparently signed off on an across-the-board cut of about 10 percent in order to avoid competitive bidding. That would tell me that we are overpaying right now for durable medical equipment and oxygen supplies, at least that much, if they are willing to accept an across-the-board cut instead of competitive bidding. The 300 suppliers that won the competitive bidding contracts, they are just out on a limb now. They probably have lawsuit remedies that will cost the taxpayer billions and billions of dollars more. So all we are doing is delaying the reforms that we have worked so hard in the past to implement for 1 year. For 1 year. Now I understand the politics of that. Any time you tell a constituency, we're going to give you more money this year, that's probably a good thing politically. As I said at the start, I'm friends with the physicians in my district, I'm friends with the pharmacists in my district, I'm friends with the durable medical suppliers in my district, and they're good people. They're trying to provide good services. But to simply delay some of these reforms for 1 year or 18 months at the costs that are going to be incurred, as I said at the start of my closing remarks, that's not good government, that's accountability avoidance. I am very happy to support the President's veto. If by some stroke of good public policy we did sustain the veto, we would be happy to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle and in the other body to come up with some true reform, some true changes in public policy that were permanent and would fix this problem, because, mark my words, if we don't sustain the veto, we will be back here next year, and we will probably be doing the same thing that we are doing today. That's not good government. I hope we will vote to sustain the President's veto. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of the 30 minutes that I control to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the President's veto. I know that's not a popular position to take on this floor since only 59 Members of this body supported the President when the vote was to pass the bill a month or so ago, but I think the position that I take is the right position on policy. The bill before us, if the veto is not sustained, would delay--and I'm being charitable to use that verb--the reform of competitive bidding for durable medical equipment. It would delay that for 18 months, which in all probability would kill a program that would save billions and billions of dollars if implemented. We have over 300 successful bidders for durable medical equipment that are not now going to be able to provide that. We have a program that, according to the Government Accountability Office, 10 percent of all the expenditures are for fraud, and we're going to perpetuate that program. The bill before us delays the reform of competitive bidding. I think that's a mistake. The bill before us does prevent a, I believe, 10 percent cut going into effect for our physicians, and that's a good thing. I don't think any Member of this body wants our physicians that provide services for our Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to have to take a payment cut. So that is the one socially redeeming value of this bill. But it doesn't permanently fix the system, it simply delays the cut for another year. And next year it will be 20 percent, I think 20.7 percent. So there is no long-term fix for that, it's another kick-the- can-down-the-road for one more year. There are some changes in the way pharmacies are reimbursed or are paid for or priced for their prescription drugs, a reform called Average Manufacturing Price, which I think is a good reform. We have had some consultations with the pharmaceutical community and the pharmaceutical manufacturers about how to actually calculate that price, but that reform replaced the system that was ridden with inequity and subject to quite a bit of gamesmanship. The bill before us would revert, as I understand it, back to the old system, which I think is a mistake. So I know it's not politically popular to say we ought to stand on principle and do the right thing, but that's the position that I'm taking. I think that's the position the President is taking. So when the vote comes, I would hope that people would look at the underlying issues and vote to sustain the President's position on this, which is the position that's the best public policy for all Americans. I haven't talked about Medicare Advantage. My good friend from Louisiana I think will make those points, but it's obvious that this bill significantly impacts, in a negative way, Medicare Advantage, which is a program that 10 million of our senior citizens have chosen to participate in to receive their Medicare benefits. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Republicans are prepared to close.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The price of raw material product has gone up, as you well know, because of all of the hearings you've done on the Oversight Subcommittee that you chair so well.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let's get to that point, and we'll work. We'll talk.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman has kind of outlined the problem, but I don't think he has really quite explained it. As he pointed out, demand for gasoline in the United States is going down--you said eight-tenths of 1 percent, I accept that as a number. In terms of barrels a day, it's about a half a million barrels a day it's gone down.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It's something we can certainly work together on.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Certainly the area that's never been leased is further behind that that has been in some stages of leasing. I will concede that point.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. You said that our inventory of finished gasoline peaked at 22 million barrels; is that correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And that sounds like a huge number.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Sure. And then I want to yield to Dr. Gingrey of Georgia, but we'll yield to Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Again, I could be corrected, and if we were all on the Internet, somebody could blog in and tell us because there's somebody out there that knows exactly, but we use approximately 12 million barrels of oil equivalent today for transportation purposes, which would include gasoline and diesel and I think aviation fuel. So 22 million barrels is not quite 2 days' supply.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Again, we're very willing to work on some reforms to the current lands that are leased to expedite the permitting process and the leasing process, and hopefully those on your side would be willing to work with us to make available more lands that haven't yet been leased.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'm not aware that we've ever said it was anti- drilling. What we've said is we want to do more than that. But we certainly support the first steps at some pro- leasing program on the majority side. We think that's a step in the right direction.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And then you have a specified amount of time in which to make improvements on the lease and determine whether it's commercial.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me yield to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) who is responsible for, or at least partly responsible for the fact that we're actually having the debate. It was his idea, and he was able to convince Speaker Pelosi and minority leader Boehner to engage in this. I will yield him such time as he may consume.