Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), for 2 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I know we can. I think my time has expired, but I just want to commend him because now I know where the problem is. It is those big bad bully Republicans and these two wily negotiators, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell, who are two of the most distinguished, able legislators in the history of the Congress, have been buffaloed by a couple of scallywags over in the Senate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, since we have not had a markup and since we have not had a legislative hearing, and I know it is cumbersome to actually refer to specific sections of the bill on the floor, especially of what is portrayed to be a conference report, which this is not, which is not amendable, but I want to go back and talk about this eligibility. There is a section in the bill, section 203: ``State option to rely on findings from an express lane agency to conduct simplified eligibility determinations.'' On the face of it, that would seem to be a good thing. This section is very complicated. It is 10 to 15 pages long. But it does say in this section that a parent of a child that might be eligible can self-verify. If you are approached by one of these express lane agencies, it is up to the parent of the child to self- determine, to self-certify that they are indeed eligible. That would appear to be something that we need to work on. Then it goes on when it defines the actual express lane agencies on page 123 of the bill, in subparagraph (F), it goes through and lists the kind of public agencies that are express lane agencies. They apparently include Medicare part D, Medicaid, Food Stamp Act, Head Start Act, National School Lunch Act, Child Nutrition Act, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, United States Housing Act, Native American Housing Assistance Act, and so on and so on. Again on the face of it, those are all agencies that might be of some assistance, but I doubt that their requirements are the same as the requirements for the base bill for SCHIP in terms of income eligibility and age determination. For example, I doubt that the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act has an age requirement at all. So again, when the President vetoes this bill and we are back working together on a bipartisan basis, these are the kinds of things I hope to clarify and tighten up.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my good friend, Mr. Rangel, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. I now know who the problem is; it is those big, bad bully Republicans in the Senate. I didn't realize that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It is my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Now that I know what the problem is, I am going to call over there. They are good friends of mine, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Grassley. And tell them that now that we have identified the problem, will they accept the language that Mr. Dingell objected to, and when we are here next week on the House floor when this bill is vetoed by the President, I would expect my good friend from New York to accept that change in the language.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, most of us are too young to remember, but in the early days of the movies there was a series of movies based on the ``Perils of Pauline.'' Pauline was a heroine who always got tied to the railroad track, and just as the train was bearing down on her the hero would come out and rescue her for another adventure in the next movie reel. Well, this bill before us has kind of experienced the Perils of Pauline. It started out in a tremendous positive bipartisan spirit here in the House. Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone on the majority and Mr. Deal and myself on the minority side and our colleagues in the rank-and-file worked together. We reported a bill, and I don't remember how many votes it got on the House floor, but I believe it was over 400. It got over to the other body, and they modified it in some ways that were somewhat different than the House bill. The negotiations broke down, and it looked for a while this week that the Food and Drug Administration was going to have to send out reduction in force notices to over 2,000 employees at the Food and Drug Administration. But thanks to the tremendous leadership of Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone and the help of people like Congressman Waxman and others on the majority side, we've been able to come back together and create a unified House position and work with our friends in the other body. And they've accepted the compromise that's before us to say that here, at 3 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, we're going to rescue Pauline and pass the PDUFA, I hope by unanimous consent on the suspension calendar, the PDUFA reauthorization bill, and lots of good things are going to happen. I am honored to be the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Subcommittee Ranking Member Deal, who has worked with the majority to put this compromise together. I want to stress the sensitivity of completing the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Program and the Medical Device User Fee Program right now. As I said earlier, if we were not to have done that by the end of this week, over 2,000 employees at the FDA would probably have received a reduction in force notice sometime next week or the week after. These are dedicated experts who are responsible for reviewing and approving new drugs, biologics and medical devices. If we were to lose those individuals, we would probably never get them back. That would have severe negative repercussions for everybody in this country. The legislation before us will promote advancement in pediatric therapies both for pharmaceuticals and for medical devices. The Pediatric Rule and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act have helped to fill a void in pediatric medicine. Prior to these acts, many children were not getting the best treatment because the information was simply not available to determine how a drug would act on them. Drugs do perform differently in different patients, which is especially true when that patient is a child. These acts have begun to provide physicians the information they need to make the best decisions for their pediatric patients. These two acts work together to ensure that accurate, timely pediatric use information is developed to ensure the best medical outcomes for the Nation's children. The bill preserves the 6-month incentive that companies receive to do additional testing in pediatric populations. I want to emphasize that. The bill before us preserves the 6-month pediatric exclusivity provision in current law, and I think that's a real accomplishment. Chairman Dingell should be commended for his leadership on that effort. I was glad to support him in that insistence on that particular provision. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for her work on that provision. Finally, the legislation addresses the issue of drug safety. No drug is completely safe. All drugs have some risk. The goal of the Food and Drug Administration is to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh any potential risks and ensure that patients have access to life-saving and life-improving medications. The legislation before us today strives to ensure that the FDA has the authority to monitor drugs to ensure that the balance between the benefit and the risk remains in equilibrium. The FDA will now have the authority to require that drug sponsors conduct postmarket clinical trials. The FDA will now have the authority to require that a drug make a label change. The FDA will also now have the authority to impose additional requirements on a drug in the form of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy when it is needed to ensure that a drug's benefits outweigh its risk. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bipartisan compromise that does strengthen the FDA, it will improve children's health, and it will reauthorize programs that are essential to ensuring that patients have timely access to drugs and medical devices. Before I reserve the balance of my time, I again want to thank Chairman Dingell, Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Deal, and all the rank-and-file members. I also want to especially thank Ryan Long on the minority staff, the gentleman that is sitting to my left. He stayed up all last night working on these final nuances. I shouldn't say this, but I'm told that he has the same clothes on today that he had on yesterday because he has worked so hard on this bill. We do want to give him special commendation. And I would urge that he take the appropriate hygienic provisions as soon as possible. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time on the minority side be yielded to Mr. Nathan Deal, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, for him to use and control as he sees fit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, the former chairman, the ranking member now. When I think of Paul Gillmor, I think of two words, ``team player.'' Earlier this year, when the Republicans lost the majority, we had to downsize the number of Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I made a decision, as the ranking member, to try not to have to kick anybody off the committee and not bump off our junior members. So I went to the senior members of the committee and asked if there were any volunteers who might want to take a leave of absence to allow the junior members not to have to be bumped off, and of course Paul Gillmor was one of the ones who volunteered to take a leave of absence so he could serve on the Financial Services Committee and keep his seniority on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Because of that, several of our junior members were able to stay on the committee. Well, about a month ago, we had a contentious mark-up coming up. Sure enough, one of the junior members had a personal family situation that they couldn't get out of. They were going to have to take a leave of absence. We needed every vote. So I went to Paul, and I said, ``Would you be willing to come back on the committee for 1 or 2 days?'' He kind of grumped a little bit about it, but he said, ``If you need me, I'll be there.'' Not only did he come back on the committee, but he offered amendments and was there all of the time and didn't complain, whine, moan or groan about how tough it was. He was a team player. He did a good job. When we were in the majority, Paul was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, which is not one of the more glamorous subcommittees of this Congress. It deals with such things as the Superfund and the Clean Water Act and all these international treaties. It's a tough job. Paul did it not only with good grace, but he did it in an excellent fashion. Paul Gillmor is going to be missed as a friend. He is going to be missed as a Congressman. He is going to be missed as a statesman for this country. My sympathy goes out to his wife, Karen, and his family. We will definitely miss the services of the Honorable Paul Gillmor in the House of Representatives. God bless him, and God bless his family.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in doubt about the amendment. I would like to engage the author in a colloquy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I guess for the time being I am in mild opposition.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would modify section 9502(a) of H.R. 3221 to ensure that the Energy Information Administration restores its previously terminated collection of data on solid byproducts from coal-based energy producing facilities and makes improvements on these data. I don't think it's controversial, and I would ask its adoption.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I may not be in opposition. I want to ask the distinguished author: these grants that would be established if the program were to be established, would they be granted on a competitive basis?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am the remaining speaker. I know Mr. Udall has the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.