Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct. This TMA extension and any further extensions will be offset with savings in addition to those required by reconciliation. I would note that the proper place to address a TMA extension beyond the next 3 months would be in the context of Medicaid reform as part of reconciliation. However, the committee that I chair reserves the right to include these offsets in other legislative vehicles, as necessary.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I speak in rabid opposition to this amendment, not because I oppose the total intent of it, but because it is legislating on an appropriations bill. If it were to pass and remain in the bill, it would make the Committee on Energy and Commerce much more difficult on reconciliation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in as strong as possible opposition to the Hinchey amendment. We have public television today, and I am very proud that we do. Public television used to say that they had a reason to exist, because if they did not exist, who would provide the public aspect of some of our television programming? That was an effective argument 30 years ago, and to some extent it is still effective today. But whereas yesterday the PBS station in the local market was maybe the third or fourth station, today it may be one of dozens of stations, and if you count cable, it may be one of hundreds. So the argument for continuing to spend taxpayer money for public television is not quite as strong as it used to be. Having said that, I think there is a role for public television in the marketplace. We are now led to believe, though, that for some reason, the current head of public television is trying to move public television, you know, to the right. I disagree with that. In last year's Presidential debates, I am told that many, many viewers who watched not the debates but the campaigns, seemed to think that NPR was simply for the Bush-haters. In fact, I had a constituent come up to me and say, well, we have now heard from the Bush-haters after listening to an NPR news commentary. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people where I come from think that NPR represents the left. I know that is exactly the opposite of what my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) thinks. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting allocates Federal funds for public radio and television. It is about 4 percent of the total funding that they receive, if my numbers are correct. I do not have a problem with this. I do not have a problem with Mr. Obey's amendment yesterday that restored funding to PBS. Having said that, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the full committee were right to reduce funding, because their committee's budget was short billions of dollars and they simply subjected the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the same scrutiny that they subjected all of the other programs under their subcommittee's jurisdiction. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for doing that. What we really have here, in my opinion, is to some extent perhaps a personal vendetta against the current head of CPB, a gentleman named Mr. Tomlinson. He apparently has riled some feathers. He apparently, in trying to be balanced, is, to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, indicating that he is maybe going too far. I disagree with that. I think he is an honorable man. I think he is trying to do the right thing. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey's) amendment is well intentioned, as it appears to be, could be perceived by some, as just trying to stop somebody from doing their job to provide a fair, balanced approach for our funds that are spent by the CPB. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we would adhere to the committee position and oppose the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, for letting us have this colloquy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, the author of the amendment, section 519 of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2006 appropriation bill, for yielding to me. Section 519, as authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), would prohibit Medicare, Medicaid, and other public health agencies from paying for erectile dysfunction medications to convicted sex offenders by modifying the medication coverage policies of entitlement programs established under the statutes within the jurisdiction of the Committee of Energy and Commerce, which I chair. This provision is clearly, and I repeat, clearly, legislating on an appropriations bill, a clear violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House. Legislative changes affecting these public health programs should be properly considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction and not in an appropriations bill. I am, however, very sympathetic to the goals of the sponsor of this provision, what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is trying to accomplish. I have with me a press report by the Associated Press just released today that says in California, the State that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is from, last year their program paid for 137 sex offenders to get these types of drugs, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) wants to prevent that. So I am not going to object today because I believe that under no circumstances should taxpayers' dollars be used to pay for providing these medications to convicted sex offenders. We do not want to send the wrong message to these individuals or to the State public health officials that have allowed this to happen. I did send a letter to the Committee on Rules asking that this language remain subject to a point of order on the floor today; but given these unique circumstances, I have agreed to allow this provision to be included in the bill today. I want to put the House on notice and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the subcommittee, that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will move legislation prohibiting convicted sex offenders from gaining access to these medications before the conference on this appropriations bill is complete. This is the proper way for the House to address the issue. I would hope that all Members will support this legislation when it comes to the floor in the very near future. [From the Associated Press] State Agencies Directed To Stop Providing Such Drugs to Ex-Convicts San Francisco.--California taxpayers helped pay for Viagra and other impotence drugs for at least 137 registered sex offenders in the past year, the state Attorney General's office said. An audit found that Medi-Cal--the state Medicaid agency that funds some health services programs for California's poor--spent $2.6 million to provide 5,855 men with Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs, including 137 men who were registered sex offenders, Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said Wednesday. Lockyer's office received a list of Medi-Cal-funded Viagra recipients from the Department of Health Services and ran that list against the men whose whereabouts are registered with local law enforcement, Barankin said. Last month, under federal pressure to prevent sex offenders from obtaining taxpayer-funded Viagra, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger directed state agencies to stop providing such ex-convicts with erectile dysfunction drugs. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services even warned it might cut federal funding for states that do not make serious efforts to cut convicted sex offenders off from these drugs. State authorities across the country have been searching their databases after a New York state audit showed that 198 sex offenders there received government-reimbursed Viagra between January 2000 and March 2005.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I want to comment favorably on how refreshing it is to come to the floor and be exposed to the civility of the debate between the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). It shows the Congress at its best in terms of debating the high issues before our country. And I want to compliment both gentlemen for their civility and their decorum in this debate. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership on this issue, his dedication to trying to find a solution that reforms the United Nations and puts that body back in the realm that it originally was right after World War II when it was the epitome of world cooperation and hope for the future. Unfortunately, its image has been tarnished, and justifiably so. My amendment deals with one of the blights on the United Nations, and this is their ill-fated Oil-for-Food program. I was the first subcommittee chairman to hold an investigation on that program back in the mid-1990s under the Clinton administration. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and I, on a bipartisan basis at the time, since he was a member of the Democratic Party, held several hearings in the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. We could see even back then that it was a program headed for disaster. In the last several years, my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, in addition to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde's) committee and the Committee on Government Reform, have launched independent investigations into the Oil-for-Food program, and I have to tell you that the United Nations does not cooperate. I can tell you of an incident that happened just this week. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is going to hold a hearing in the near future in which we try to bring to light some more of the corruption in that program. We have not deposed, but we have interviewed a U.N. employee who wants to testify, volunteers to testify, on the record. So I had my chief of staff call Paul Volcker, distinguished former Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and ask Mr. Volcker if this particular individual could testify. Mr. Volcker said he could not. Here is the person appointed by the U.N. to get to the bottom of the corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, distinguished former Chairman of the Federal Reserve System of the United States of America, and he refused to let an employee of the U.N., who wanted to testify, testify before a committee of the Congress of the United States. I think that is inexcusable. So what my amendment would do, if accepted, and my understanding is that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) would accept it, and I hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) would also accept it, would simply say that this independent oversight board that the base bill creates has to conduct a thorough investigation of Mr. Volcker's investigation and any successor investigations, and it sets out some guidelines, the most important of which is that the U.N. has to cooperate with congressional committees and their request for testimony, interviews, documents, correspondence, memoranda, books, papers, accounts and records related to the Oil-for-Food program; and if they do not, then we can require, again under the auspices, under the base bill of the oversight board, that an independent committee has to be appointed that is made up not of U.N. officials, not of U.N. employees. That is all the amendment does. It attempts to get to the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal by requiring that they cooperate with the various congressional committee investigations underway, and if they do not, that we have to appoint another board outside the U.N. to get the investigation on track. I hope that we accept this on a voice vote by unanimous consent. I am told that it is going to be supported by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and I strongly appreciate his support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we all vote for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 268 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in crafting this legislation, the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce have endeavored to understand and take into account benign and reasonable functions involved with network management, as well as standard functionalities of the Internet. In that spirit, section 5(b) provides that the Act does not apply to monitoring or interaction with a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service, or a protected computer, to the extent that the monitoring or interaction is for security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities. In significant part, the intent of this provision is to ensure that providers of Internet services (such as telecommunications carriers and cable operators) have the ability to conduct activities necessary to maintain the integrity of their systems. For instance, large-scale telecommunications carriers may not be held liable under the Act for enterprise-level management and maintenance activities within their own networks. I would like to add that, in keeping with our Committee's bipartisan process, I am authorized to say that my distinguished colleague, Ranking Member Dingell, agrees with this understanding of our bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a distinguished doctor on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, May 23, 2005, I call up the bill (H.R. 810) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 to insert extraneous material on the pending bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) be allowed to control 20 minutes of the remaining 45 minutes that I currently have control over.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) be given 45 minutes of the debate time on the pending bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this motion be extended by 20 minutes, equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, legislation I have cosponsored along with the honorable gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is in the Chamber. This would expand the number of stem cell options available to Americans suffering from life-threatening diseases. Every year, nearly two-thirds of the approximately 200,000 patients in need of a bone marrow transplant will not find a marrow donor match within their families. These patients must rely on the help of strangers to donate bone marrow for a transplant. To assist these patients, Congress established the National Bone Marrow Registry to quickly match donors to patients. Through this program, Congress made a significant investment to connect patients with a rich source of stem cells that offer immediate clinical benefits. With scientific advances, Congress must now make changes to reflect new therapeutic options. Cord blood units have been shown to be a suitable alternative to adult bone marrow for the treatment of many diseases, including sickle cell anemia. This is an especially important advancement for those Americans who have desperately searched for a marrow donor but could not find a match with even the help of the National Bone Marrow Registry. As another rich source of stem cells, a cord blood transplant is another chance at life for many of these patients. The bill before us today builds on the critical investments we have made over the past 2 decades with the National Bone Marrow Registry and retools this design into a new, more comprehensive stem cell transplantation program, which will include not only bone marrow but also cord blood units. Through a competitive contracting process, this new program will allow transplant doctors and patients to access information about cord blood units and bone marrow donors, at the same time, and I want to emphasize at the same time, through a single point of access. This new program does not create a preference for either cord blood or bone marrow. Instead, it will provide comprehensive information about both sources of stem cells to doctors and patients and allow them to make the most clinically appropriate choice. I want to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) at this time. It was the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) drive, when he was chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and his steadfast support for the idea of a national registry for bone marrow that led to the program's creation. The gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) lifesaving work is evident again today in the program's new design and goals. I am pleased that Congress is recognizing his dedication by naming this new program the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. I do not see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) in the Chamber, but at the appropriate time when he does arrive, I hope that the body will give him a standing ovation for his work in this area. The capacity to search for cord blood units through a national network of cord blood banks will help facilitate cord blood transplants. We also need to expand the inventory of cord blood units so that more transplants can occur. The bill before us today authorizes a new grant program to provide subsidies to cord blood stem cell banks to expand the inventory of high-quality cord blood units that will be included in the new, expanded Cell Transplantation Program. I think that number is 150,000 units, which is a significant increase. In addition to expanding the number of cord blood units available for clinical use to save lives today, the bill would also expand the number of cord blood units available for research. Research on adult stem cells holds the potential to develop new cures for many diseases, as well as to expand our knowledge of how human beings develop and the body works. I would also like to make a personal aside here. My wife and I are expecting a child in September, and we are working with the cord blood people as we speak so that my son, and it is going to be a little boy and we are going to name him Jack Kevin, that we are going to save his cord blood so that some day in the future, if he needs it, it will be available. So in this case I can honestly say, in addition to sponsoring the bill, I am beginning to practice what I am preaching today. It is not enough to connect patients with lifesaving donors. We also need to better understand how these patients fair when they receive the transplants. The bill would authorize research on the clinical outcomes of patients who are recipients of a stem cell therapeutic product, including bone marrow, cord blood, and other such products, from a biologically unrelated donor. It is my hope that this additional research will trigger new scientific breakthroughs to enhance and advance human life. This is an important bill that merited many hours of negotiation, demanded the willingness of all those involved to put the interest of their patients first. I would like to thank the bill's primary sponsor, the honorable gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the House leadership, including the honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); Congressional Black Caucus; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the committee; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the subcommittee ranking member who is here to speak on the bill; and all of the staff who have labored on this bill. Particularly, I would like to thank Cheryl Jaeger, on my left, of my committee staff, for all of her efforts. She has been tireless in the last several months working on this bill. In the last few weeks, she has been able to forge a compromise that ultimately was acceptable to all the advocates of both bone marrow and cord blood. We will continue to improve the legislation that moves forward so that pregnant women are informed of all of their options with respect to cord blood donation and the programmatic activities of the Cell Transplantation Program are clarified. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. It is good legislation, well thought out, and deserving of majority support. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 Establishes a Foundation for Improving Access to Lifesaving Cellular Therapy Transplants The National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) is pleased that the sponsors of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 have taken a positive step forward toward expanding the long-standing Congressional commitment to cellular transplant therapies by introducing legislation to continue Federal support for bone marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord blood transplantation and research. Through the legislation introduced today, they acknowledge the important role Congress has played and must continue to play in ensuring that the more than 14,000 Americans in need of these types of transplants have access to them. The bill calls for Federal dollars to increase the number of umbilical cord blood units available for transplant and research. Currently, there are 42,000 units available through the existing National Bone Marrow Donor Registry (National Registry), which also lists more than 9 million adult donors worldwide. With additional umbilical cord blood units added to this registry, more Americans who would otherwise not be able to locate a suitably matched adult donor will be able to find hope through a cord blood transplant. The NMDP estimates that with access to the existing adult donors and units, the addition of 150,000 cord blood units listed through the existing registry will provide a match for approximately 95 percent of Americans. By designating the existing National Registry as the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, the sponsors have acknowledged Representative Young's unwavering commitment to the National Registry and its growth. In 1986, Representative Young's vision of a single integrated national bone marrow donor registry became a reality. Since that time, the National Registry has facilitated more than 21,000 unrelated transplants involving cord blood, bone marrow, and peripheral blood. It now includes more than 5 million U.S. adult volunteer donors and has links to another 4 million worldwide. As evidence supporting cord blood as a source of the same cells found in bone marrow and peripheral blood has grown, the National Registry, operated by the NMDP, has expanded to include more than 42,000 cord blood units through the NMDP's partnership with 14 of the 20 U.S. public cord blood banks. We join the sponsors in saluting Representative Young's dedication to helping the thousands of Americans in need of these types of transplants. The expansion of the Program will benefit patients most if they are able to access the new sources of cells easily and efficiently. The NMDP supports the intent of the sponsors to provide patients and physicians with access to cord blood, bone marrow, and peripheral blood stem cells through a single point of access. To ensure the continued expansion of cord blood transplants, it is important that patients and physicians can search for all of these sources through a single registry, compare each source of cells for transplant quickly and efficiently, and obtain the cells once the search process is finished. One-stop-shopping to obtain information and logistical support is a critical component of the success of transplantation regardless of whether adult donors or cord blood units are used. The bill recognizes this need by calling for a single point of access for these activities to build upon the National Registry. Using the current registry as a basis for the new program will ensure that limited resources are dedicated to increasing the availability of matches and not in reinventing new bureaucracies. Although this bill is a step in the right direction, it is critically important that the Program also have the authority to establish criteria and standards that provide transplant physicians with the assurances they need to be confident that when they compare various cord blood units and/or adult donors, they have the same type of information about each unit or donor. In addition, the NMDP urges members to recognize that transplant patients may encounter other barriers to accessing cellular therapy transplants. The need for assistance in addressing barriers to access should be extended to all recipients of transplants under this program, regardless of cell source. Physicians and patients must be able to receive all of the services necessary for a successful transplant, including distribution coordination, patient counseling, translation assistance, testing, insurance coordination, and other patient advocacy services. We look forward to working with the sponsors and the Department of Health and Human Services to strengthen these provisions of the legislation. The NMDP applauds the sponsors for undertaking this important public health initiative. Through their leadership, thousands of Americans who might otherwise die will have access to lifesaving bone marrow, peripheral blood stem cell, and cord blood transplants.

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 on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I want to thank the majority leader and the Speaker for bringing these two bills to the floor today. The first vote we will have is on the cord blood and bone marrow bill, H.R. 2520. This bill, by itself, is an extremely important advance for those of us that believe you can use medical research ethically to help find cures for existing disease and enhance human life both now and in the future. I am, obviously, as one of the original sponsors of the bill, going to vote for it and encourage all the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for its. It is a good piece of legislation and, by itself, is a major advancement in the state of the art that we have today. The next debate that we will have is on the Castle-DeGette bill which is another form of stem cell research, embryonic stem cell. That issue is much more controversial, but on its own merit that bill itself deserves a serious debate. And while it is not yet time to debate that bill, at that time I will announce that I will vote for that bill also. So I hope we can do first things first. Let us pass in a strong bipartisan fashion the Smith-Barton-Young adult cord blood bone marrow bill, and then go on to the next issue.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), very briefly.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).