Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), but before I do that I would like to announce to the House that one of the other cosponsors of this important legislation, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), as we speak, is awaiting a lung transplant, which may very well occur this afternoon and this legislation would have not gotten to the floor of the House without his strong commitment to it. So I would encourage all my colleagues to pray for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) that his surgery goes well and that he is back amongst us as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3015. All of us have deep concerns about the abuse of prescription drugs. Whether after surgery or in the treatment of chronic pain, ensuring that patients receive proper pain management is a critical component in the provision of health care. However, these medications can and sometimes are abused. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has heard about the problems prescription drug abuse has created in our communities throughout America. In some areas, the nonmedical use of prescription drugs presents a bigger problem than even cocaine and heroin. This is a serious issue that cannot be addressed through traditional drug control programs. We need to find a balanced approach that does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship but also ensures that these potentially addictive drugs are not abused. Prescription drug monitoring programs can be a part of the solution to this public health challenge. These programs help physicians better serve their patients because they can review the patient's prescription drug history. Drug interactions can often lead to adverse events for patients so that these monitoring programs serve as an additional safety check. Only 21 States have implemented drug monitoring programs. While this is a good start, problems arise because illicit drug use shifts to contiguous States without monitoring programs. H.R. 3015 will strengthen prescription drug monitoring programs to eliminate gaps in systems between States and ensure that programs are interoperable so information is readily available across State lines. I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), all members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their hard work on this legislation. At the appropriate time after the debate, I would urge that all of my colleagues support it. 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 on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3015) to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an electronic system for practitioner monitoring of the dispensing of any schedule II, III, or IV controlled substance, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 15th District of Ohio (Ms. Pryce), our distinguished Republican Conference chairwoman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have a number of bills before the House today, dealing with health-related issues that have come out of the committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This bill is one of the more important of those bills as it attempts to give our citizens the ability to navigate the health care system to get the very best possible care in the most time-efficient manner. I would like to take a step back and reflect on where we have been in this Congress and in previous Congresses. As the second session of this Congress draws to a close, I think it is entirely fitting that the House should devote much of its time today on these health care issues. It is not a stretch, in my opinion, to call this House, the 108th Congress, the Health Care Congress. I am proud of the many accomplishments that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has been responsible for in this area over the last 2 years. I think the achievement that we will reflect back on and be most proud of, of course, is the Medicare Modernization Act, which President Bush has already signed into law and which is helping millions of our senior citizens as we speak. After years of debate and inaction, this Congress finally has delivered in that bill a prescription drug benefit to our Nation's seniors. Of course, not all of the Medicare Modernization Act's provisions are fully up and running yet. They will be phased in over the next several years. And when they are totally phased in, I think we will all look back and reflect that this was a very good thing that we have done in this Congress. We should be proud of our achievement. I salute the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce who have worked so long and hard to make that happen. Prescription drugs are not the only area where this Congress has worked to advance the health agenda of the American people. Working with President Bush, we have also written laws that upgrade our medical device program. We have instituted a new animal drug approval system. We have provided for competition in the contact lens marketplace. We have updated our poison control center programs. I might add that all of those achievements occurred under Congressman Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who, as we speak, is undergoing radiation treatment down in Texas for a cancer that he has discovered in his body that, hopefully, is being removed. We have also improved our Nation's organ donor system and, most recently, created a new program to help prevent and educate against youth suicide. By any measure, these accomplishments would rival that of any Congress in the past. Today, we are continuing the good work we have already established in the 108th Congress. We have five substantive bills that we are going to debate and vote on, hopefully in a positive way, in the next several hours, all of which in some way improve the health care system for millions and millions of Americans. The one we are debating at this moment is the Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act. The Committee on Energy and Commerce favorably reported this legislation last week, and it is now on the floor. Improving health care outcomes for all Americans requires substantial improvements in health disparity populations, populations not defined solely by race and ethnicity, that have a significant disparity in the overall rate of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity, mortality, or survival rates as compared to the health status of the general population. Patient navigator programs as provided in this bill provide outreach to communities to encourage more individuals to seek preventive care and coordinate that care so that they are less at risk to have or to maintain a chronic disease. For example, the Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention, a partnership between Memorial Sloan-Kettering and North General Hospital in Harlem, New York, operates a patient navigator program to help patients and family members deal with the complexities of the health care system in that area. By coordinating health care services through a patient navigator, programs strive to shorten the period of time when the patient is screened for cancer or other chronic diseases and further diagnosis and treatment, so they can be treated as soon as possible. H.R. 918, as amended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, authorizes a 5-year demonstration program to evaluate the use of patient navigators. Specifically, the legislation requires patient navigators to coordinate health care services and provider referrals, facilitating the involvement of community organizations to provide assistance to patients, facilitate enrollment in clinical trials, anticipate barriers within the health care system itself, to help ensure prompt diagnostic care and treatment, to coordinate with the health insurance ombudsman program, and conduct ongoing outreach to health disparity populations for preventive care. Grant recipients must establish base-line measures and benchmarks to evaluate the program outcome, which all culminate in a final report prepared by the Secretary no later than 6 months after the completion of the demonstration grant program. The bill authorizes a total of $25 million over a 5-year period to conduct these demonstration programs. I would like to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from the 15th Congressional District of Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for her outstanding leadership and undying commitment to this particular bill. I would also like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for his work; the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Menendez), for their assistance in streamlining this legislation. Again, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues on a very successful Health Care Congress, and especially on this particular bill. If we can get the bills that we are considering today to the President's desk, the 108th Congress should go down as one of the best ever for health care initiatives. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam 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. 918, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 918) to authorize the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and the Indian Health Service to make grants for model programs to provide to individuals of health disparity populations prevention, early detection, treatment, and appropriate follow-up care services for cancer and chronic diseases, and to make grants regarding patient navigators to assist individuals of health disparity populations in receiving such services, as amended.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to urge all my colleagues to support this. This is a good piece of legislation. It recognizes an individual in the district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), who died in a bicycling accident. It also recognizes a very helpful activity. I have a mountain bike, although in Texas you would have to call it more of a prairie bike or a hill bike; but this is a good thing, and I hope we can pass it unanimously. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 480, authored by my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), to recognize the spirit of Jacob Mock Doub and his contribution to encouraging youth to be physically active and fit. Jacob Doub, a resident of North Carolina, died unexpectedly from complications related to a bicycling injury 2 years ago. His spirit, however, lives on as his family and friends have recently joined with the International Mountain Bicycling Association to establish the Jack Doub Memorial Fund to promote and encourage children of all ages to learn to ride a bike and to lead a physically active lifestyle. I understand that Jack's vivacious attitude toward mountain biking was irrepressible. His energy and drive to be a great mountain biker is an inspiration to all of us. With obesity rates on the rise, we all need to take personal responsibility and do more to increase physical activity to improve our health. Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam 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. Con. Res. 480.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 480) recognizing the spirit of Jacob Mock Doub and his contribution to encouraging youth to be physically active and fit and expressing the sense of Congress that ``National Take a Kid Mountain Biking Day'' should be established in Jacob Mock Doub's honor.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. My father was a diabetic. I respect the fact that the gentleman has been out and had, if not a formal hearing, at least some meetings in the Territories in which this was discussed. I understand the gentlewoman's concern and her requirement that she has to represent her constituents. This is not a policy objection. This is a fact that when we deal with Medicaid, we have got a carefully crafted formula that involves all the States and the Territories and this amendment would upset that formula.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. Obviously I am not opposed to providing additional dialysis and health care for the residents of the Virgin Islands and Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, having said that, the way this amendment is structured, if we were to support the amendment, if it were to pass, it would change the Medicaid funding formula, which, as we all know, is a very sensitive issue and is something that in the next Congress I intend to make a major effort to do a fair reform of that formula. If this amendment were to pass, it is my understanding that the people that are covered by the amendment, 2 million out of the 3 million covered are qualified for Medicaid, and there could be, I am not saying there would be, but could be as much as $28 million in expenditures, additional expenditures. Since I have the committee of jurisdiction and we had not even been approached on this until either yesterday or today, I would hope that the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Indiana would withdraw the amendment and we could work with them to find a way to get some funding this year in some additional bill that is going to come before the floor.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I further yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. I am not opposed to the underlying substance of the amendment. My objection is to the procedure, and the way in which it has come forward in order to implement it in its current configuration would cause a major problem down the road in Medicaid-matched rates with other States.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would certainly be in the next session. I am not opposed to trying to do something in the next 4 or 5 weeks in this session, if we can find the right vehicle.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, I want to comment on the procedural aspects of the consideration of this legislation. I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) pointed out a bill similar to this passed the other body 100 to zero. That is a phenomenal accomplishment considering that the other body this year many days has not even agreed on whether the Sun rises in the east or the west. But on this particular piece of legislation, they passed it 100 to zero. The President of the United States, President Bush, and his legislative aides contacted my office immediately and asked us to expedite consideration of this legislation on the floor of the House. We took the bill that passed the other body, we looked at it and we felt like, as well-meaning as it was, that in many cases it was duplicative and it could be improved if we made some changes. To his credit, when we called Senator Smith, he agreed to work with us on that process. We attempted to bring the bill up the last day before we adjourned for the August work period. There were still some concerns that could not be worked out. That bill could only come up under unanimous consent. The minority leader, the gentlewoman from California, agreed to it, the majority leader the gentleman from Texas agreed to the unanimous consent, but there were some Members on the Republican side that still had concerns, so we pulled the bill that night. We spent the August work period working at the staff level to try to iron out the differences. I submit with no apology that the bill that is before us today as a result of those extra days and hours of consultation is a better bill. It requires that 85 percent of the funds expended have to be spent on direct services. So this is not an overhead bill. This is a direct- services bill. It requires that when grants are awarded to institutions that have existing programs, there be a dollar-for-dollar match, that the institution that already has a program has to match through services or in-kind contribution or direct dollars, dollar for dollar, the amount of the grant that they are receiving. There is a requirement in the legislation before us that there is an outcome-based assessment each year, so that as we begin to implement some of these programs, we actually go in and make sure that in future years we only award grants to programs that actually do have results in a positive way. I am very proud of that. In terms of the parental consent section of the bill, which was the most difficult to find a compromise, we agreed that if there is an emergency situation where direct intervention needs to be conducted to prevent an individual from committing suicide, that that can be done immediately and to whatever extent is necessary so that we stabilize that individual and prevent him from taking his life. But once that occurs, before there is any entry into a long-term program, the parents have to be notified and they have to consent in writing that their child can be involved in that long-term program. I personally think that is a very, very reasonable compromise. One can argue that the Federal Government should not be involved in early intervention and suicide prevention. That is a reasonable position to take. But given the fact that 4,000 of our young people killed themselves last year and that, as the gentleman from Nebraska has pointed out, suicide rates among our young people have tripled in the last 40 years, I think it is wise for the Federal Government to be involved. Every life that we save is a future productive citizen who is going to contribute to our society and to our country. I strongly agree that we should be involved with a Federal program that helps in that area. I would point out that this bill is a 3-year authorization bill. It is not a permanent expansion of any program. It is a 3-year authorization. As I said earlier, as we go through each year, the programs that are granted have to be evaluated on an outcomes basis. I think Members on both sides of the aisle, whether they are conservatives or liberals or moderates, regardless of whatever region of the country they come from, can sincerely and enthusiastically support this bill tomorrow when it comes to a vote. It is a good bill. I am proud that we have helped Senator Smith memorialize his son, the late Garrett Lee Smith; and I would hope that we get a unanimous vote tomorrow on this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.