Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I still have?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. No. ``Identical'' is defined to mean that minor differences in wording are acceptable so long as they do not alter the underlying meaning of the provision. So, for example, Federal law provides that a food is adulterated ``if it contains any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the food injurious to health.'' This is often referred to as the basic adulteration provision of Federal law. State law that addresses the basic adulteration requirement will need to be the same as that provision of Federal law.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the FDA has not established a tolerance or limit for a particular poisonous or deleterious substance in food, the State is free to make its own determination of what quantity of that substance should be held to adulterate the food. If, however, there is an FDA established tolerance or limit, the State would then need to follow the tolerance or limit in its enforcement of State law. If FDA has finally determined that there should not be a tolerance or limit, then in that instance also the State would need to follow the Federal policy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes. If the State's food adulteration provisions are identical to the listed Federal provisions and there is no Federal tolerance or limit, the State may apply its law either by regulatory action or State legislative enactment. All that the bill requires is that the State apply the same standard for adulteration that is found in Federal law. It does not matter whether the State does that administratively or by legislation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I now ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Barton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and thank my friend from Michigan for offering the motion to recommit. Let me say right up front that I don't want to eat anything that has been sitting in the refrigerator for 5 months that hasn't been cooked. Nobody is for that. I don't believe anybody is. I would point out, though, that nothing in this bill prohibits a State from establishing a freshness dating State provision. It is on page 14, and it starts in line 11, and it goes through line 16. Nothing in this section or section 403(a) relating to food shall be construed within a State or political or subdivision of the State from establishing or enforcing or continuing in effect a requirement relating to freshness dating. The gentleman from Michigan's underlying motion to commit doesn't really deal with the dating aspect, as in dating the food, trying to go out on a date with some food, you know. It relates to the fact that it would prevent carbon monoxide, CO, from being used as a preservative in the packaging. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have, for the last 4 years, permitted that. Right now there is a proceeding at the FDA on a citizen's petition that is directly related to Mr. Stupak's motion to recommit. There is absolutely no need to legislate in this area. If, in fact, there is something wrong, and there is nothing wrong, there is no scientific basis at all to say that using carbon monoxide as a preservative, when you package the food, is a health hazard or a scientific problem at all. But if it were to be, the FDA has a proceeding right now. Plain and simple, this is more of a marketing, competitive issue. There is a company that is at a competitive disadvantage, and they would like to see carbon monoxide not be allowed to be used. That is a whole different market-based issue. That is not a legislative issue. I would oppose the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman is correct. Provisions of State law that establish standards for determining when a food is adulterated, that are the State counterparts to those ten listed sections of Federal law, will need to be identical to the Federal law.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington, and I yield to him at this time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1053, H. Res. 673, and H.R. 4167.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was signed by the President in August. This Act is the most comprehensive energy legislation in 30 years, and I believe it will lower energy prices for consumers, spur our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and take unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency. I want to highlight one provision that I included in the House passed version of this legislation and which was retained in the final conference report. This provision promotes energy efficiency of electric transformers and improved public safety, but also promotes strong environmental stewardship. This provision, [section 1403,] governs the use of non petroleum oil in electric transformers as electrical insulation. The intent of section 1403 was to provide clarity for the new Oil Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations. As some of my colleagues know, electric transformers, whether the small buckets on telephone poles or those pad mounted on the ground, include some quantities of oil used as an electrical insulation and thermal dissipation medium. Under SPCC, small and rural utilities and institutions that have their own electric transformers--including hospitals, schools, and military bases--will be required to build secondary containment diking around their electric transformers in case there is a spill of the oil used in transformers as thermal insulation. It should be noted that by the government's own estimates, facilities with less than 10,000 gallons of storage capacity account for less than 2 percent of the total volume of oil spilled in the United States. Furthermore, the amount of volume contained in electric transformers is well below this figure. All those facts aside, section 1403 was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a means to provide an alternative to the increased costs of Federal regulations on rural communities and institutions that have electric transformers, providing regulatory relief for bio-based oils that have proven environmental benefits. Specifically, local communities and institutions that have electric transformers can avoid the costs of constructing secondary diking containment around their transformers if they use bio-based, non petroleum oils as insulation. In addition, many older electric transformers still contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in their electrical insulation. By promoting these alternatives to petroleum-based oil used as thermal insulation in electric transformers, we provide a smart and environmentally friendly option to encourage the replacement of PCBs. It should be noted that this provision was retained in the final legislation without opposition or controversy. Additionally, in 1995, Congress passed the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. This statue set forth specific guidelines for implementing regulations on oil spills. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act states ``. . . in issuing or enforcing any regulation or establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a fat, oil, or grease under any Federal law, the head of that Federal agency shall differentiate between and establish separate classes . . . and consider differences in the physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the environment.'' Nearly a decade later, EPA continues to maintain the position that ``oil is oil.'' EPA has either been unwilling or unable to differentiate between the different classes of oils. I raise this issue because I want to make clear how the author of section 1403 intends it to be interpreted. Section 1403, Regulation of Certain Oil Used in Transformers, reads as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, vegetable oil made from soybeans and used in electric transformers as thermal insulation shall not be regulated as an oil identified under section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (33 U.S.C. 2720(a)(1)(B)).'' EPA's broad generalization that ``oil is oil'' disregards renewable oils that, I believe, have an improved effect on the environment in case of a spill. EPA's broad policy impedes the replacement of fluids known to be harmful to the environment with fluids that have proven, tested benefits for the environment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 653, a resolution that will concur in the Senate amendment to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. In passing this resolution, the House will make important reforms in telecommunications and Medicaid, which are under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This resolution is necessary because when the other body took up the budget reform package, or the reconciliation package, they struck three items of the conference report that had a nonfinancial impact under what is called the Byrd Rule in the other body. The three items are a report requiring value-based purchasing for the Health and Human Services Department to report to Congress on a date certain for a hospital or for a value-based purchasing program. That was the first thing struck. The second thing struck was a MedPAC report which would have provided a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress on that same hospital value-based purchasing program. The third thing that was struck was a section that would have shielded from legal liability certain hospitals and physicians who enforce cost-sharing requirements for nonemergency care in emergency rooms absent a finding of gross negligence. Those are the only three changes from the conference report that this body, the House of Representatives, passed by a six-vote margin before we recessed for the holidays. So, substantively, with those changes, the bill before us, if this resolution passes that brings the bill up for consideration, is identical. With regard to the issues that are in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I chair, the legislation would effectively put us in the Digital Age on February 17, 2009. America and television sets would go all digital on that day. The analog television signals that have come into our homes over the air since the birth of TVs since the 1940s, or maybe in some cases since the 1930s, would end; and we would have the new era finally before us. In 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85 percent loophole in the current law has delayed the consumer benefits of digital television, and it has prevented the clearing of very vital broadcast spectrum for critical public safety and wireless broadband uses. The DTV legislation in the pending bill brings needed certainty that will allow consumers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, manufacturers, retailers, and the government to prepare for the end of the transition. It includes a strong consumer education measure. It helps ensure that all consumers have continued access to broadcast programming, regardless of whether they use analog or digital televisions or whether they watch television signals broadcast by a local station or subscribe to cable TV. The package also includes necessary revisions to Medicaid. Medicaid is a victim of its own success. The program has grown so expensive that it is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's Governors on both sides of the aisle understand the grim future of Medicaid without reform. They told us over and over in hearings before the Energy and Commerce Committee that Medicaid will bankrupt the States unless some reasonable reforms are enacted. These were Democrat Governors and Republican Governors. They told us what they needed done, and we attempted to do it. The proposal that is embedded in the pending legislation contains commonsense reforms and will help fix some of the flaws in the current Medicaid program to ensure that it will continue to be the safety net that protects our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Some of these reforms include allowing States to charge some basic copays to higher-income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid overpayments for drugs, and providing the States with the flexibility to tailor their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of the beneficiaries. We would also make it more difficult to hide assets so that wealthy clients can pretend to be poor to qualify for long-term Medicaid coverage in nursing homes. We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of Federal spending in this program. Overall, the net savings over a 5- year period are a little over $4.5 billion. It is the right thing to do, regardless of the budget implication; but the budget implication is positive. I recognize that some of my critics will say that even a modest reform will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its current form is hurting the poor. Clarifying the Treatment of Distributor Service Fees Under the New Medicaid Pharmacy Reimbursement Reforms I want to clarify specifically how bona fide services fees, which are negotiated between a manufacturer and pharmaceutical distributor, should be treated under the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement metric. Manufacturers pay bona fide service fees for specific services provided by the distributor. Service fees are a relatively new business model to the pharmaceutical distribution industry and how they should be treated under federal reimbursement programs first came into question when the new Average Sales Price (ASP) metric under the Medicare Modernization Act was being recently implemented. I am pleased to note that Congress specifically did not include service fees as a price concession to be incorporated into the calculation of ASP and CMS subsequently confirmed that, ``Bona fide service fees that are paid by a manufacturer to an entity, that represent fair market value for bona-fide service provided by the entity, and are not passed on in whole or in part to a client or customer of the entity should not be included in the calculation of ASP.'' The conferees did not intend to have bona fide services fees included in the calculation of the Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) based reimbursement methodology as established in the pharmacy reimbursement provisions of the conference agreement. Clarifying Changes to Medicaid Third Party Liability Standard The provision regarding the meaning of a new Medicaid third-party liability provision included in section 6036 of the conference agreement on S. 1932, the ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005'' seeks to clarify the obligation of third parties that are legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service, and the requirements for third parties to provide states with coverage eligibility and claims data. Specifically, that section amends the list of third parties named in section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act for which states must ascertain the legal liability to pay for medical care and services available under the state's Medicaid plan. The provision adds ``pharmacy benefit managers'' to this list, and introduces a new phrase ``legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service''. Under current law, Medicaid is the payor of last resort. In general, federal law requires that available third parties must meet their legal obligation to pay claims before the Medicaid program pays for the care of an individual. The Conference Report amends the list of third parties named in Section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act for which states must take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability to include, among others, pharmacy benefits managers. I would like to clarify that the addition of pharmacy benefit managers to the definition of liable third parties is in the instance when they are at risk for the underlying benefit, such as operating as a plan sponsor for purposes of providing health benefits or as a risk- bearing entity under the new Medicare Part D program as a stand-alone PDP. This addition is not meant to make pharmacy benefit managers liable when they are acting merely in an administrative capacity on behalf of a liable third party. The intent is not to create an additional liability where none exists today. Pharmacy benefit managers may or may not be liable third parties. It is dependent upon whether they are ultimately responsible for the payment of a claim. It is my understanding that the health plan or employer contracting with the pharmacy benefit manager is ultimately at risk for the underlying claim, so it is my belief this will not create new liability for the pharmacy benefit manager. I understand that this same intention was addressed in a colloquy on the Senate side between Senator Bond and Senator Grassley on December 21, 2005. Clarifying Medicaid's Coverage for EPSDT Services There have recently been some public discussions about what benefits states would be required to provide for children under the benefit flexibility provisions contained in Section 6044 of the Deficit Reduction Act. Section 6044 specifies that states may provide flexible benefit packages, but only if such package provides, for any child under age 19, wrap around benefits packages that consist of ``early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services defined in section 1905(r).'' This language reflects the clear legislative intent by both the House and Senate that all children should continue to receive access to coverage of early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services (``EPSDT'') services. That was what Members agreed to and the language was drafted accordingly. In addition, this is exactly how the Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'') scored this proposal. In the most recent score of S. 1932, CBO said that ``states would be permitted to enroll children in a benchmark benefit plan but would be required to provide supplemental coverage of all other Medicaid benefits, including early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services.'' In a statement released during the Senate debate on S. 1932, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan also indicated that CMS had determined that children under age 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT benefits if they are enrolled in benchmark or benchmark equivalent coverage. Further, Administrator McClellan said that in implementing section 6044, CMS would not approve any state plan amendment that does not include the provision of EPSDT services for children. Congress clearly intended for all children under Medicaid to continue to receive EPSDT services and we will work with Administrator McClellan to ensure that all children will continue to receive access to these important services. Clarifying Medicaid's New Co-payment Policies In implementing the new premium and cost sharing provisions contained in section 6041, it was the intent of Congress that Medicaid populations below one hundred percent of the federal poverty level would be exempt from the general application of cost sharing and premiums. The only two exceptions to this rule were that these individuals could still be subject to minimal co-payments for non- preferred drugs and could be charged co-payments if they sought non- emergency services in an emergency room. Clarifying Intent on Medicare Advantage Budget Neutrality Adjustment The phase out of the budget neutrality adjustment for Medicare Advantage plans under section 5301 of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act and the joint statement which accompanied the Conference Report in the Senate requiring adjustments for differences in coding patterns is intended to include adjustments for coding that is inaccurate or incomplete for the purpose of establishing risk scores that are consistent across both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage settings, even if such coding is accurate or complete for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, December 15, 2005, I was admitted to the hospital upon suffering a heart attack. As a result, I missed three days of votes. I ask that my statement be placed in the appropriate part of the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following rollcall votes, had I been present. Thursday, December 15, 2005: Nay: On agreeing to the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment Failed by recorded vote: 162-252 (roll No. 639). An amendment numbered 8 printed in Part B of House Report 109-347 to provide guidelines for implementing the secured alternatives to detention provision in section 402(a). Aye: On agreeing to the Hunter amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 260-159 (roll No. 640). An amendment numbered 11 printed in Part B of House Report 109-347 to mandate the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. Fencing has been designated in sectors that have the highest number of immigrant deaths, instances of drug smuggling and illegal border crossings. The amendment includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405--15 (roll No. 641). Friday, December 16, 2005: Aye: On motion to close portions of the conference. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 409-12 (roll No. 642). National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06. Nay: On motion that the House instruct conferees Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 228-187 (roll No. 643). National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06. Aye: On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221-200 (roll No. 644). Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq. Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 217- 202 (roll No. 645). Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq (roll No. 645). Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 216-203 (roll No. 646). Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes. Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413-1 (roll No. 647). Calling on the international community to condemn the Laogai, the system of forced labor prison camps in the People's Republic of China, as a tool for suppression maintained by the Chinese Government. Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 279-109, 34 Present (roll No. 648). Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq. Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421-1 (roll No. 649). Condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's ``Operation Murambatsvina'' under which homes, businesses, religious structures, and other buildings and facilities were demolished in an effort characterized by the Government of Zimbabwe as an operation to ``restore order'' to the country. Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 397-17, 7 Present (roll No. 650). Providing that Hamas and other terrorist organizations should not participate in elections held by the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes. Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408-1 (roll No. 651). Recognizing the importance and credibility of an independent Iraqi judiciary in the formation of a new and democratic Iraq. Nay: On motion that the House instruct conferees Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 246-175 (roll No. 652). Budget Reconciliation, 2006. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the managers on the part of the House to recede to the Senate by eliminating House provisions reducing eligibility for food stamps; reducing funding for child support enforcement; repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset; modifying the Mining Law of 1972; eliminating the sections of the House amendment that reduce Medicaid benefits and allow increases in beneficiary costs; reducing to the maximum extent possible increases in interest rates and fees paid by student and parent borrowers on student loans; adopting the Senate provision eliminating the stabilization fund that makes payments to Medicare Advantage Regional Plans; adopting the Senate provision on Medicare Advantage risk adjustment; and adopting the Senate provision on Medicare physician payments. Aye: On agreeing to the Goodlatte amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 273-148 (roll No. 653). An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 109-350 to eliminate the visa lottery program. Aye: On agreeing to the Stearns amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 420-0 (roll No. 654). An amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report 109-350 to prohibit Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Attorney General, and all courts from granting any kind of legal immigration status (i.e. ``benefits'') to an alien until the relevant databases of criminal records and terrorist watch lists are checked. Aye: On agreeing to the Sensenbrenner amendment Failed by recorded vote: 164-257 (roll No. 655). An amendment numbered 7 printed in House Report 109-350 to reduce the maximum sentence for illegal entry and illegal presence to six months. Aye: On agreeing to the Norwood amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 237-180 (roll No. 656). Clarifies federal law by explicitly stating that states and their political subdivisions have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to federal custody aliens in the U.S. while enforcing immigration laws in the course of carrying out the routine duties; Aye: On agreeing to the Westmoreland amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 247-170, 1 Present (roll No. 657). An amendment numbered 15 printed in House Report 109-350 to set caps on the monetary penalties set forth in Title VII of the bill for hiring or employing unauthorized aliens of $7,500 for first time offenses, $15,000 for second offenses, and $40,000 for all subsequent offenses; Provides an exemption from penalty for initial good faith violations; and provides a safe harbor for contractors if their subcontractor employees an unauthorized alien (provided the contractor did not know the employee was an unauthorized alien). Nay: On agreeing to the Gonzalez amendment Failed by recorded vote: 87-332 (roll No. 658). An amendment numbered 16 printed in House Report 109-350 to increase the fines on businesses for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens to $50,000. Proceeds would be shared with state and local government and are restricted for use to help cover the costs associated with providing services to undocumented immigrants. Aye: On agreeing to the Sullivan amendment Failed by recorded vote: 163-251, 1 Present (roll No. 659). An amendment numbered 18 printed in House Report 109-350 to require all non-citizens who enter or exit the country to be processed through the automated entry-exit control system Congress mandated in 1996. Nay: On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 198-221 (roll No. 660). The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back with an amendment which inserts a complete new text entitled ``Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005''. Aye: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 239-182 (roll No. 661). Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 404-5, 1 Present (roll No. 662). Condemning actions by the Government of Syria that have hindered the investigation of the assassination of former Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafik Hariri conducted by the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC), expressing support for extending the UNIIIC's investigative mandate, etc. Saturday, December 17, 2005: Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 213-190 (roll No. 663). Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. Aye: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413-0 (roll No. 664). Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening I had an event occur that at the time my thought was, why me, Lord? But as I stand here this evening, I actually can say it is one of the greatest blessings of my life because since that time I have learned how great and how good this institution is and this country is. Literally thousands of people, many of whom I have never heard of, have sent good wishes and prayers to me and my family. I am not going to embarrass anybody on this floor, but some of the meanest, toughest reputations on both sides of the aisle have called me and shown themselves to be some of the biggest softies I have ever known. So I just want to say from the very bottom of my very, very sore heart, God bless this institution. This is the greatest institution for good the world has ever known. And I want to also say God bless the Lord for sending me my sweet wife, Terri, who is watching this and has been with me every step of the way. Let us work together the next year for the greater good of America because when we do what is good for America we do what is good for the world. Thank you for your prayers. God bless you all.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the value of finding additional spectrum below 1 GHz for unlicensed devices to meet the growing consumer demand for robust wireless broadband connections. As outlined in the committee report, the Federal Communications Commission should evaluate whether the presence of unlicensed devices operating in the broadcast television bands will produce harmful interference to television stations broadcasting in that band. Unlicensed devices that utilize spectrum below 1 GHz could be used by neighbors who want to communicate with each other, by wireless Internet providers who want to improve their coverage, or by other service providers who want to expand their capabilities. Unlicensed use of these bands has the potential to foster additional broadband competition, technological innovation, and economic development. In addition, wireless broadband devices can be deployed rapidly in areas where wireline communications infrastructure has been wiped away, such as has occurred during recent disasters. I agree that the FCC should act expeditiously on this proceeding, and we were therefore pleased to provide the FCC with a deadline to complete its work.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Michigan. But at that first conference with the Governors there was not any package on the table. We were talking concepts. There was no package on the table. It was just the concept. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York, who is also the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Chairman King, I agree the Department of Homeland Security should have a strong consultative role in administering this new program. The Department of Homeland Security standards and grant guidance for interoperable communications must be used to ensure consistency in the administration of this new $500 million program. It is too late at this point to amend the language establishing the program, but I pledge to work with you and your committee to resolve this issue during conference.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce reconciliation package consists of two components. There is a Medicaid reform package and there is a digital television transition package. Both of those packages have widespread support outside of the halls of this body. Cumulatively, together, they are going to change the baseline for Medicaid from a rate of growth of a little over 7.3 percent to 7 percent per year for the next 5 years, and in terms of the digital television transition package, expected to raise in the neighborhood of $10 billion and put America on a digital broadcasting and receiving footing beginning January 1, 2009. Both components of the package are worthy of support. I would hope we could support those components in this package.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of very quick comments on the process. I had the privilege to attend a National Governors Association Conference early last spring on the issue of Medicaid reform, and Subcommittee Chairman Nathan Deal was with me at that conference, and Ranking Member Dingell and, I believe, even subcommittee Ranking Member Brown was at that conference. And the Governors, on a bipartisan basis, said they wanted to work with the House Energy and Commerce Committee to help reform Medicaid this year. They supported legislative action. Mr. Deal and I said we would be happy to work with the Governors to try to come up with a bipartisan package. Ranking Member Dingell, at that conference, I cannot remember his exact quote, but it was something to the effect that it would be over his and the other Democrats on the committee's dead political bodies that they tried to do anything to reform Medicaid. And they have been true to their word. I do not believe any Democrat on my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, voted at any level to help reform and improve and maintain the integrity of our Medicaid program, which is one of the most important health care programs in this country for low-income and senior citizens, low-income Americans and senior citizens. Today, the House will make important reforms in telecommunications and Medicaid in the title provided by the committee I chair, the Energy and Commerce Committee. By going to conference with the Senate, we also keep hope alive for a critical energy policy--safe and limited crude oil production from the Alaskan north slope. The legislation before us effectively sets Thursday, January 1, 2009, as the day America goes all digital. The analog television signals that have come into our homes over the air since the birth of TV will end the night before, and a great technical revolution that has been in the making for years will finally be complete. In June 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85-percent loophole in current law is delaying the consumer benefits of digital television and preventing the clearing of broadcast spectrum for critical public safety and wireless broadband uses. The DTV legislation brings needed certainty to allow consumers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, manufacturers, retailers, and government to prepare for the end of the transition. It includes a strong consumer education measure. And it helps ensure that all consumers have continued access to broadcast programming, regardless of whether they use analog or digital televisions, or whether they watch television signals broadcast by a local station or subscribe to pay-TV. We're also here today to consider Medicaid reforms. Medicaid is a victim of its own success. The program has grown so expansive that it is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's governors understand the grim future of Medicaid without reform. They tell us that Medicaid will begin to bankrupt the States unless some reasonable reforms are enacted. They were Democrats and they were Republicans. They came to us and told us what they needed done, and we did it. Our proposal contains common-sense reforms and will help fix some of the flaws in the current Medicaid program to ensure that it can continue to be the safety net that protects our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. The reforms in this legislation include allowing States to charge basic co-pays to higher income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid overpayment for drugs, and providing States with the flexibility to tailor their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of beneficiaries. We'll also make it difficult for lawyers to hide assets so wealthy clients can pretend to be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home services. We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of Federal spending. However, these changes are the right thing to do, regardless of the budget implications. I recognize that some critics will argue that even the most modest reforms will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its current form is already hurting the poor. Between 2002 and 2005, 38 States reduced eligibility; and 34 States reduced benefits. This year, hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries are losing Medicaid eligibility or facing reduced benefits because of State action. This committee will not stand by and do nothing while Medicaid slowly collapses. The reforms we are offering today will help to save the program while at the same time protecting the poorest of our society. In fact, most provisions in the legislation include additional protections for the most vulnerable recipients, such as children, pregnant women, the disabled, the mentally ill and those in hospice care. It is perplexing to me that so many who say they care the most, want to do the least. If you want Medicaid patients to lose health care, the best thing to do is nothing. I want fairness and efficiency from Medicaid, and a vote for reform is a vote to save it. A vote to keep what we have is a vote for waste and for bankruptcy. It is a vote to cut health care for those who can't afford it, and certainly can't afford to lose it. We also can't afford to keep locking up our critical energy resources. A small, small part of ANWR was set aside by Congress twenty-five years ago for consideration as an energy resource. We have learned since then just how great those resources are. Today's gasoline prices would go down if we produced in ANWR. Dropping ANWR is ignoring what Katrina taught us--we need diversity of energy supply. I will vote for this bill today because it includes the right set of reforms and saves the taxpayers money. Let's get to conference with the Senate and come back with ANWR.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), Telecommunications Subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this and being the floor manager for this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the primary sponsor of H. Con. Res. 269, a resolution to recognize the 40th anniversary of the White House Fellows program. As has already been pointed out, this is a program that was established first by President Lyndon Johnson to be a leadership forum for young Americans of all walks of life, of all political persuasions, all ideological philosophies, to give them a window on Washington for a year and then encourage them to go and be leaders in building America. Since its inception in 1964, over 600 Americans have served as White House Fellows. I was privileged to be a part of the class of 1981 and 1982 where I served in the Department of Energy. The best thing about the Fellows program are the Fellows. You get to meet the most amazing people. In my class, we had the police captain from Oakland, California; we had an Indian chief from Oklahoma; we had a law professor from Utah; we had a Navy captain from the Navy; an Air Force officer from the Air Force; a tank commander, an infantry battalion commander from the Army; and you had somebody like me, Joe Barton, from Crockett, Texas, plant manager. There have been, as I said, over 600 Americans serve in the program. Some of them are names that we now know as household words. Colin Powell, who was Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was a White House Fellow. Elaine Chao, Secretary of the Department of Labor, is a former White House Fellow. Wesley Clark, who was former Allied supreme commander in Europe, is a former White House Fellow. In my class, David Karnes was a Senator from Nebraska. Paul Applegarth was a senior officer at the World Bank. Mike Ullman is currently president and CEO of JCPenney Corporation. Members who have served in Congress or in the Senate since they were Fellows include Tom Campbell; Sam Brownback, who is currently the Senator from Kansas; former Senator Tim Wirth, who started out as a Congressman from Colorado and then became Senator from Colorado; and of course myself, who is currently serving in the House of Representatives. As has been pointed out, this is a nonpartisan program. You are asked to fill out an application that is about 30 pages long. It is the most extensive application I have ever had to fill out. You are asked what your life's ambitions are, what you consider your notable achievements, what you hope to achieve, and you are even asked to give a policy recommendation to the President of the United States. Pretty heady stuff when you are a young plant manager in Crockett, Texas, like I was back in 1981. The interview process is extensive. You start out at the regional level. Everybody whose application is accepted, and normally there are 1,000 to 2,000 applications filed that are winnowed down by the staff of the White House Fellows to about 500 or 600. Those then are read over several weekends by former White House Fellows and that application pool is winnowed down to approximately 150. If you are one of the 150 what are called regional semifinalists, you are invited to a regional interview over a 2-day period where you sit down face to face with a panel of leaders in your local area and are asked all kinds of questions. Each region picks three finalists to go to the national finals. There are 33 national finalists. You come to Washington for a weekend where the national panel interviews you. From that group of 33, they pick the class that is anywhere from 10 to 15 Fellows. I think the largest class has been 19. You then spend the next year, if you are picked, working as an assistant in one of the Federal agencies, up and including the White House; but every week you meet with your class and you meet world leaders, local leaders. My year we met with Tom Foley who was the majority leader, I believe, in the House. We met with Tip O'Neill. We met with the majority leader in the Senate. We met with the President. We met with the Vice President. We also met with corporation leaders. We met with community service leaders. And you get to go on several trips. We had two domestic trips where we went to Chicago where we studied the architecture of Chicago. We went to the west coast where we went out and studied agriculture in California. I got to take my class to Texas and we showed them Houston, TX, where we met with leaders of the oil industry; and then we went to Austin, TX, where we met with State leaders. We also went on one international trip. My class went to Europe where we studied NATO issues. This is a wonderful program. You make lifelong friends, but it also helps facilitate that ephemeral quality called leadership. The goal of the program as established by President Johnson back in the 1960s was to give young Americans who had shown potential in their early career the opportunity to have a window on Washington and then go out, whether they go back to their community, whether they stay in Washington, whether they change career paths, to hopefully be a positive force for change for America. I can honestly say after 600 Fellows, after 40 years, that the program has delivered beyond the wildest expectations of President Johnson. It is with a great deal of pride that I am allowed to be the primary sponsor for this resolution. I think Senator Brownback is the sponsor in the Senate. I say to the past 600 Fellows, the current 15 Fellows and to future Fellows: job well done; let's look to the future; let's continue to build a better America.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Thomas, requested that the attached exchange of letters be submitted during the floor debate on H. Res. 261. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, Oct. 17, 2005. The Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for your letter in regards to H. Res. 261, a resolution ``[e]xpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should be commended for implementing the Medicare demonstration project to assess the quality of care of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend the project, at least through 2006, subject to any appropriate modifications.'' As the Committee on Ways and Means was named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction upon the resolution's introduction, I acknowledge and appreciate your willingness to not exercise your full referral on the resolution. In doing so, I agree that your decision to forgo further action on the resolution will not prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this legislation or similar legislation. I look forward to working with you on this resolution. Sincerely, Joe Barton, Chairman. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, Oct. 11, 2005. The Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: I am writing concerning H. Res. 261, a resolution ``[e]xpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should be commended for implementing the Medicare demonstration project to assess the quality of care of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend the project, at least through 2006, subject to any appropriate modifications,'' which was ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday, July 20, 2005. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. This resolution calls for the extension of the Medicare demonstration project to assess the quality of care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this resolution. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H. Res. 261, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.