Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) for 2 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, a member of the committee, Mr. Terry, for 2 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Congresswoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 2 minutes to one of our most distinguished Members, Dr. Price, for 2 minutes. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Deal of Georgia.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the full committee, Mr. Upton of Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to apologize to the body. I thought that we went in at 10 o'clock this morning. When I left last evening, that is what it said. My staff did call me last night and tell me I needed to be on the floor by 9:30, but I thought they were gaming me, trying to get me here by 10 and telling me I had to be here by 9:30. Obviously, we did convene at 9, and I showed up at about 10 till. I thought I was 10 minutes early. So I apologize to my brethren for not being here. There is an old saying that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, and a lot of us try to live by that. But in spite of our best efforts, sometimes we need prescription drugs. I am living proof of that. About a year ago, a year and a month ago, I was in a conference here in this Capitol with my friends in the other body, negotiating budget reconciliation instructions, and I had a heart attack. Until that day, I had seldom had to take prescription drugs. Since that day, I take five or six. I take a drug to lower my blood pressure. I take a drug to thin my blood. I take all kinds of drugs so that I don't have a repeat of the heart attack that I had 13 months ago. Now, I am not 65, so I am not covered by Medicare. I am in the standard Federal health benefit plan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And it does have a prescription drug benefit that partially pays for those drugs. But if I were to be over 65, which we have some Members of this body that are, I would have to be a part of Medicare and I would have an option under the current law to participate in Medicare part D, the prescription drug benefit program. Now, when my friends on the other side were in the majority for 40 years, from 1954 to 1994, many of them sincerely, consciously wanted prescription drug benefits for Medicare. For whatever reason, it never quite happened. When the Republicans became the majority in 1994 and took over in 1995, it took us a while, we didn't get it done right away, but 3 years ago, we did pass a prescription drug benefit for part D, and it kicked in in the last Congress. It is voluntary. Seniors that don't want to participate don't have to. Approximately 90 percent of the seniors that are eligible, we are led to believe, have chosen some plan for a prescription drug benefit. Now, there are various plans. There are approximately 100 plans. These plans, some of them are very comprehensive. Some are very specific. Some are national, and some are regional. The long and the short of it is that every senior citizen in this country that wants a prescription drug benefit that is covered by Medicare can get one, and about 90 percent have chosen some plan; and of that, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent seem very, very satisfied. The average cost in monthly premium is $22 a month. Twenty-two dollars a month. There are some plans, I am told, that have zero premiums; you don't have to pay to participate. Within those plans, over 4,400 drugs are covered. In some of these plans, generic drugs are free. In some of these plans, the donut hole does not exist. So through diversity and market competition, we have created a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens in America that seems to be working very, very well. Now, my friends on the Democrat side, the new majority, have come in, and they have got this bill up today. They want the government to negotiate prescription drug prices. On the surface, that may seem like a good idea. In reality, it would be a terrible idea. Who is going to do better than market forces with thousands and thousands of people and hundreds of plans and millions of people choosing whether to participate in this plan or that plan? What government bureaucrat, even somebody as smart and distinguished as the current Secretary of HHS, Secretary Levitt, who is going to do better than that? Now, this concept that the government can negotiate a better price is simply not true. The CBO has come out and said it is not true, various think tanks have come out and said it is not true. But if you think it might be true, think of the products for which the government is the only purchaser and ask yourself, do we get the absolute best price? There are not many products that the government is the only purchaser, but there are some. Aircraft carriers. There is not much demand for an aircraft carrier in the private market, so the U.S. Government is the only purchaser of aircraft carriers. An average cost of an aircraft carrier right now, I think, is about $5 billion. Now, we get a very quality product. The USS Reagan is the epitome of an aircraft carrier. But I don't believe we could say that we buy it at the absolute rock bottom price. Now, we may not want to when it comes to some of our military equipment. We may not want to get the absolute best price. We may want to get the absolute best product, and so we are willing to pay a premium for that. But there is really no way that a person in the Federal Government, or a group of people in the Federal Government, is going to replicate the thousands and thousands of market forces that are in play today. So of all the ideas that my friends in the new majority have brought forward in their first 100 hours, I would respectfully say this has got to be the worst one. And I don't mean that in a mean way. We have a program, Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, that is working. The people that can participate are choosing wisely. The premiums are coming down. The cost is coming down. It covers over 4,400 drugs. It is working. As they say in many parts of our country, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So I would respectfully urge the body later today to defeat this program. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. This bill reduces access to drugs, creates a massive new pricing bureaucracy, slows access to drugs, and disrupts a program that works. Let me restate--this program works. Beneficiary premiums are 42 percent lower than expected, overall costs are 30 percent lower than anticipated, and more importantly, seniors like what they are getting. Beneficiary satisfaction with their drug benefit is 80 percent or higher. So if it works, why break it? Upon reading H.R. 4 there are some things that I know, some things that I don't know, and some things that I fear to be the case. Here's what I know. I know that there's a prescription drug benefit available in this country for 43 million Medicare beneficiaries. Of those folks, 90 percent now have some form of drug coverage. I know that premiums are now down to around $22 per month for those that choose to enroll in this new benefit. And that's lower than last year because competition continues to drive the premiums down. I know that beneficiaries like their new drug benefit. I know that beneficiaries are getting the drugs of their choice at the pharmacies of their choice, all at low costs. And I'm told, sometimes at zero cost for some drugs if they choose generics. Should I say that again? That's zero costs for some drugs. Here's a question--how does the government negotiate a lower price than zero? H.R. 4 will not produce any savings. Why do I say that? The Congressional Budget Office has stated multiple times the federal government can not get lower prices than those currently achieved through competition. CBO must also know, what I know, and that is competition works. Here's what else I know--H.R. 4 requires the government to negotiate prices that may be charged for drugs. But what else does H.R. 4 do? That's hard to tell because H.R. 4 doesn't say much more. Is the bill just poorly drafted or is it intentionally silent about the multitude of beneficiary and pharmacy protections in the current drug program that could be eliminated? Upon reading H.R. 4, I do not know if plans will be able to offer the same wide array of drug choices as under the current program. I do not know if our seniors are protected from being stripped down to just one or two drugs offered from the many they may now choose from to best suit their health needs. I do not know if there are protections in place to assure access to robust pharmacy networks, and I do not know if pharmacy reimbursement associated with dispensing drugs could be limited, eliminated, or otherwise restricted. What I fear is that H.R. 4's silence on these very important questions means that such beneficiary and pharmacy protections have not been considered. What I fear is the effect H.R. 4 may have on beneficiary access to drugs and pharmacies. Unfortunately, there have been no hearings or mark-ups to discuss and debate these important issues. And even with knowing that H.R. 4 produces no savings, that beneficiaries overwhelmingly like this benefit, that the benefit works, that pharmacies are participating, and that premiums and overall costs are down, Democrats--led by Speaker Pelosi--feel compelled to blindly undermine this program with no legislative record to back up their claims. I am saddened. I am sad today for America's seniors because H.R. 4 serves no purpose other than a political one. We should not be playing politics with our seniors' access to drugs and pharmacies. We should be encouraging more seniors to enroll in this benefit, not tear it apart. Sadly, that is not what the Democrats have chosen to do in their first 100 hours of power. And for what? We know from the experiences in other countries that government mandated drug formularies and interference in drug pricing leads to substantially less drug innovation and rationing of access to the new medicines that do come to market. Under the current program, a senior can choose a plan that will provide access to new drugs that slow heart disease, ease pain, keep families together longer, cure disease, and provide a longer and higher quality of life. In other countries with government run prescription drug plans citizens must wait years for new therapies. That's if the government chooses to provide the drug at all, just ask the cancer patients in the United Kingdom who waited years for the new breakthrough drug Herceptin to be covered. How big and slow will this Big Government Pricing bureaucracy be? It's hard to tell with no hearings. With over 4,000 drugs, different economic conditions every year, new drugs entering the market all the time, and incredibly complicated questions about how this would work, the Pelosi plan will create a bureaucratic nightmare, but more importantly will endanger access to life improving and lifesaving medications and therapies. If you are as frustrated as I am about the unfairness of how the government pays physicians under Medicare, be prepared for more frustration on getting this political pricing scheme to work. What about the effect of H.R. 4 on taxpayers receiving health coverage through private insurance or other federal purchasers? The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a 2000 report entitled Expanding Access to Federal Prices Could Cause Other Price Changes that this type of system could raise drug prices for non- governmental purchasers. So according to the GAO, government negotiation in Medicare could lead to higher insurance costs for people with an employer sponsored health plan, a labor union plan, or even an individual insurance policy. Yet the Democrats have not held one hearing on this bill. I ask what we are doing here today. Research firm after research firm has shown that large majorities of beneficiaries have a positive view of the prescription drug benefit. That is probably what is galling the Democrat leadership. A Republican Congress and President has passed and worked hard to administer a very popular program. Within 100 hours the Democrat leadership has reneged on its campaign statement of bipartisanship, reneged on their campaign statement of open and considered legislative process, flip-flopped from a position of non-interference that they held in numerous bills, made hollow their statement of supporting an innovation agenda, and again shown their penchant for favoring Big Government mediocrity over choice, competition and accountability. I was here for Contract with America. Those bills we passed with the Contract had hearings with many witnesses, Committee mark-ups and amendments, and opportunities for amendments on the floor. Who is hurt by lack of process on H.R. 4? Beneficiaries. Taxpayers. Pharmacists. Everyone. Without hearings on H.R. 4, without opportunity to develop solutions to concerns and understand the consequences of our actions, everyone loses. Particularly seniors. In Speaker Pelosi's district there are over 81,000 Medicare beneficiaries and 103 pharmacies. How many hearings have there been to consider whether there are any beneficiary and pharmacy protections under H.R. 4? Zero. Let's build that out a little more. The total number of Medicare beneficiaries represented by Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee is 5.4 million and there are 6800 pharmacies. The total number of Medicare beneficiaries represented by Congress is close to 43 million. There are over 53,000 pharmacies. The consequences of this legislation are potentially grave and yet there has been absolutely no process given to determine how it would affect these important constituencies. I don't mind an open discussion on the new Medicare drug benefit. We have had hearings on the benefit when I was the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I like the fact that the Energy and Commerce Committee plans to hold more hearings this year. It gives me an opportunity to tout the program's successes. Seniors are seeing real savings and the cost of the program continues to decrease thanks to choice and competition. What I don't like is the purely political exercise we are being put through today that will jeopardize the access to needed drugs that the 63,000 beneficiaries in my district currently enjoy. I urge all members to oppose this process and oppose this ill conceived piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette. I also want to compliment the Speaker on his management of time. He has done an excellent job. I will say it is better to have him up there so he can't debate us down here. So I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives, I have been in the Congress for 22 years. Until the last Congress, my pro-life voting record, over 21 years, was 100 percent. One hundred percent. In the last Congress, I did vote for what was then the Castle-DeGette bill. I also voted to override the President's veto. So coming into this Congress, my pro-life voting record is 100 percent, minus two votes. Now, in anybody's book, that has got to be an A-plus. I am going to support what is now DeGette-Castle because I am pro- life, and I strongly support the pro-life effort in every way. But having said that, when it comes to research and when it comes to stem cell research, I think Members on both sides and of all various persuasions in which your view is the pro-life or pro-choice issues, unless you think we shouldn't do research at all, and there are certainly Americans who do not believe it is proper to do medical research, or unless you don't think we should do medical research at all in embryos or in stem cells, then it is appropriate to have a debate about this bill. Now, I hope the amniotic research works. I had a baby son, Jack, 16 months ago. My wife, Terry, and I saved his cord blood. It is stored right now in California, and if he ever needs it, it is there. I hope that the adult stem cell work that is being done is successful. I am disappointed that so far the embryonic stem cell research has not yielded the results that we hope, but it is that one time that works that we are hoping for. The Chicago Cubs have not been in the World Series, since when, 1916? But every spring they start out that they are going to get to the World Series this year. We don't know which researcher will find the cure to Parkinson's or the cure to Alzheimer's, and it may be through adult stem cell or amniotic stem cell, or it might be through embryonic. Now, the bill before us would take the approximately 7,000 to 8,000 embryos a year that are disposed of as medical waste and make it possible for the custodian, the parent, the custodian of those embryos to donate them for medical research purposes that is federally funded. Seven to eight thousand. To me, as a pro-life Congressman for over 22 years, the choice is: Medical research, medical waste; which is the most pro-life? Medical research that might, might find a cure for my mother's Alzheimer's or my brother's liver cancer that he died of, or medical waste that literally goes in the trash bin? That is what is happening now. Why cannot we make it possible to pursue cord blood, amniotic, adult stem cell, and embryonic stem cell? So I respectfully, for those Members yet to cast their vote on this issue, please vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, stem cell legislation has been debated on this floor before, and I welcome the opportunity to again speak in support of legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. In August of 2001, the President issued his policy on federally funded stem cell research. President Bush announced that for the first time Federal research dollars would be available for research using existing stem cell lines. Originally it was believed that there were nearly 60 viable stem cell lines, however, for a variety of reasons, that number was reduced to 22. Furthermore, many of those 22 lines cannot practically be used for research. This legislation will help create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow for science and medicine to progress. In order to ensure that these embryonic stem cell lines are ethically derived, the legislation provides strict ethical constructs. The lines must come from embryos that have been donated, that were specifically created for fertilization treatments and would otherwise be discarded. Those donating the embryos must provide written consent and they may not receive financial incentives. Understandably, this is not a simple vote for anyone on this floor. This is a vote of conscience for all members. In the 109th Congress, identical legislation was agreed to by a vote of 238 to 194 in the House and later passed the Senate by a vote of 63 to 37. However, the House was unable to capture enough votes to override the Presidential veto this past summer, and the legislation never became law. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently defended human life and opposed all forms of abortion. I also respect the need for progress in medicine that will help protect and improve existing human lives. My decision to support this legislation puts me one vote short of a perfect, 100 percent pro-life voting record, and it was not reached carelessly. It is the product of much personal contemplation and plenty of prayer. I have lost members of my family to illnesses that stem cell research might have cured. I have concluded that I am just not ready to require that sacrifice from other families, to watch lives slip away that could be saved. Recently, a study was issued by Wake Forest University in which the ability to reclaim embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid was demonstrated. This is an important step forward in stem cell research, and I applaud it. However, this important step should not preclude the use of other forms of stem cell research that could one day become a cure for many diseases that too many Americans suffer. The researcher of this very study has restated his support for passage of H.R. 3. This will be one of the most difficult votes that many of us cast in this Congress. It is literally about life and death. It is about the lives and the deaths of real people, people we know and love. Regardless of our differing positions, this is an issue on which it is impossible to be insincere. I ask that we respect one another during this debate, and that we honor each other's views, especially the ones with which we differ.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. Then the distinguished Speaker was out of order in the past.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. My point of order is, the distinguished Speaker when he was in the minority numerous times made points of order that were----

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. How many times----

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Another point of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is the rule that we are operating under coming out of the Rules Committee?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. What would I need to do to yield the time I am controlling to Mr. Castle?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the distinguished Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair. To have one of our distinguished parliamentarians is a positive on the body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican sponsor of the bill, Mr. Castle, at this time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1608, the ``Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers Beyond Borders Act'', also known as the SAFE WEB Act. Mr. Speaker, my Committee dealt with this issue in the 108th Congress because it is a growing problem. The issue is important because fraud perpetrated against our citizens increasingly originates or is committed outside the United States: the Federal Trade Commission reports 20 percent of the complaints it received are ``cross-border'' fraud complaints. Under current law, there is little the FTC can do to stop or prosecute a perpetrator outside the United States. The Safe Web Act will make two significant changes to help stop the fraud and protect consumers. First, it amends the FTC Act definition of ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' to include acts or practices involving foreign commerce. Second, it allows the FTC to share information and cooperate with foreign governments to investigate and take action on fraud complaints consistent with existing law enforcement practices. I am pleased to see that S. 1608 reflects and codifies the interagency agreement reached in 2004. We have an amendment that will make a few minor changes to S. 1608. The Amendment strikes the findings, eliminates the gift provision to the FTC, and sunsets the legislation after 7 years. This is good consumer protection legislation and will help law enforcement agencies find and prosecute criminals outside our borders committing fraud against our citizens. I would like to thank FTC Chairwoman Majoras as well as Jeanne Bumpus at the FTC for their efforts to help make this legislation a law. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill so we can continue to protect consumers and prosecute criminals.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 707) to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.