Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and to thank him for his efforts in shepherding this bill to the floor today. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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. 2520.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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. This legislation will 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 that matches within their families. These patients must rely on the help of strangers to donate bone marrow or transplant. To assist these patients, Congress established the National Bone Marrow Registry to quickly facilitate unrelated donor transplants. 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 stem cell 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 bone marrow donor, but could not find a suitable match, even with the help of the National Bone Marrow Registry. As another rich source of stem cells, cord blood transplant is another chance at life for many patients. The bill before us today builds on the critical investments we have made over the past two 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 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 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 to stem cells to doctors and patients and allow them to make the clinically most appropriate choice. I would like to recognize Congressman Bill Young. It is his drive and steadfast support for an idea of a national registry for bone marrow that lead to the program's creation. Mr. Young has continuously supported improving this program and does so today by reformatting the program's design. I am pleased that Congress is recognizing his dedication by naming the new program the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. Lastly, I would like to note that through the discussions with the Senate, we have improved the original House bill to make the program more effective, including improved patient advocacy and case management services. We have created a new demonstration program to allow families with a sick child who could be helped with a cord blood transplant from a sibling to bank cord blood from newborns should they decide to have another child. We have also expanded the clinical outcomes database to include biologically related donors in addition to unrelated donors. Finally, we require the Food and Drug Administration to provide a report on its progress in developing licensure requirements for cord blood units. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) be allowed to control the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this amendment and for yielding me time. He brings an important aspect of enforcement to the table, and that is interior enforcement. Many people believe that only the problem exists along the border, and that is not true. My State of Georgia, Congressman Norwood's State of Georgia, is one of the fastest growing in terms of population of illegal aliens in the country. In fact, in my congressional district in north Georgia, two of the five fastest growing populations of illegal immigrants are in my congressional district. Now, if we want to get serious about enforcement, let us look at what the facts are. You heard Congressman Norwood say there are 500,000 criminal aliens in our country that are waiting to be apprehended. In our State of Georgia, one of the fastest growing in illegal populations in the country, I am told we only have three enforcement agents. In our adjoining State of Alabama, they only have one. Are we really serious? Why not tap into the 700,000 State and local law enforcement officers who are available and trained to enforce the law.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. A lot has been said tonight about people losing coverage under Medicaid if these reforms go in place. I would like to call the reality of today to attention. If you want to lose people from Medicaid rolls, just do nothing. The status quo is doing that very adequately. Tennessee is having to remove over 200,000 from their Medicaid rolls. Missouri is removing over 100,000. In the last 3 years alone, 37 States have had to reduce eligibility, and 34 States have actually had to reduce benefits. The Governors are crying out to us to do something. If we don't do something, they can no longer sustain their portion of the requirement of paying their part of Medicaid. That is the message that they have sent to us on a unanimous basis. All Governors, both Democrat and Republican across this country have said, please reform the program. It is in dire need of reforms in order to be sustainable.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Yes.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. In the manager's amendment, we provide for a GAO study that would authorize the Secretary to delay the implementation of the new reimbursement structure if the study finds that the average payment rates to pharmacists for drugs under the new Medicaid program are below the pharmacy acquisition cost. We think that this study will determine whether pharmacies are paid adequately and that we continue to provide access to Medicaid recipients for prescription medications.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in favor of S. 172, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their work on the House companion bill, which was H.R. 371. Historically, the contact lens industry in the United States has secured prior approval from or clearance by the Food and Drug Administration prior to the introduction of contact lenses into the United States market. These same contact lens manufacturers also have been subjected to and complied with numerous requirements codified in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A few companies challenged the FDA's ability to regulate non- corrective decorative contact lenses as medical devices to create a loophole in the current law. As a result, these entities distribute their products without the attendant controls that historically have safeguarded contact lens consumers. The uncontrolled distribution of decorative contact lenses has caused a variety of eye injuries and conditions. At first, what might seem to be a minor irritation, if left untreated, can develop permanent eye damage and loss of vision. S. 172 would close this loophole by restoring the FDA's ability to regulate all contact lenses as medical devices. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I urge the adoption of this Senate bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), who is the original cosponsor of the House companion bill to this legislation.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 172) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, and for other purposes.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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 S. 172.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the author of the legislation.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 261, a resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). This resolution commends the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for implementing the Medicare oncology demonstration project, and requests that it extend this successful program. I am pleased to report that due to this important demonstration project, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has received valuable data that will serve to better treat patients suffering from cancer. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death to Americans, and almost every American has had their life touched in some way by this horrible disease. Simply put, cancer kills. Cancer does not discriminate. It takes many forms and effects young and old alike. I commend the CMS for their leadership in addressing this effective treatment for cancer patients. Specifically, I commend CMS for approaching cancer care from a totally different perspective. Providing quality cancer care is not just about administering drugs to patients, albeit performing this task safely and efficiently is important. Providing cancer care includes managing pain, minimizing nausea, and limiting fatigue. It means arming clinicians with information and evidence-based practice guidelines to obtain the best possible clinical outcomes. That is what the chemotherapy demonstration has begun to provide towards the advancement of cancer care in this country. The demonstration initiated last fall by CMS reflects our commitment to quality and the use of clinical data to pave the way for enhanced quality care, including good clinical outcomes and reduced cost to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. These are principles which I stand behind, and I commend CMS for their work to ensure that cancer patients receive the best possible care. This resolution was approved by voice vote by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I encourage my colleagues in the House to do the same this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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 the resolution under consideration.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 261) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Centers for Medicare & 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 amended.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me go back and sort of summarize what this bill does and does not do. It has been a little confusing, because it is a bill that does basically two things: One is it cuts Federal spending, and then it uses part of the savings from that cut in four different areas and then applies the balance left over from those four areas to reduce the Federal deficit by about $150 million over the next 5 years. First of all, where does the cut come from? What it does, in order to achieve the savings of some $690 million over 5 years, is to eliminate from Medicare and Medicaid payments for erectile dysfunction drugs. We have heard a couple of speakers who have addressed their dislike of the elimination from Federal taxpayer spending the payment for these drugs. Well, my people back in North Georgia tell me, and without any hesitation whatsoever, that they do not think their tax dollars ought to be paying for erectile dysfunction drugs for either individuals under Medicare or Medicaid, and they believe that these are not drugs that should be available to convicted sex offenders. Now, some would say, oh, you mean it is possible a convicted sex offender could get an erectile dysfunction drug that is paid for by taxpayers? Very definitely that is the case. There is no way for a pharmacist who is presented with a Medicare or Medicaid card to have access to the NCIC records to determine if that individual is a pedophile or some other kind of sex offender. That would be the height of embarrassment to this Congress, to discover we are allowing for those kinds of situations to exist. Now, it is not just a personal opinion of mine. This House has already expressed its opinion on this issue earlier this year. In the consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriation bill, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) had an amendment to that bill that would have eliminated the payment for ED drugs. That amendment received overwhelming support, some 285 to 121 who voted for it. There were many others, like me, who supported the concept but, because we did not think we should cede jurisdiction on legislating on the issue to the Committee on Appropriations, voted against the amendment. In principle, we supported the concept. This is the forum in which we have legislatively addressed it by an authorizing committee to address this question. Now, that does not mean that individuals who are under Medicare part D cannot obtain these drugs if they choose to do so. The plans are free to offer them. They simply cannot use Federal taxpayer subsidies to pay for them. All right, that is where the savings come from, is the elimination of ED drugs from Medicare and Medicaid, some $690 million over 5 years. Now, what are we spending the savings on? Part of it is spent, as we have heard from some speakers, to extend the Medicare Qualified Individual 1, the QI-1 program, for another year. That applies to 150,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries, to give them assistance in paying their Medicare part B premiums. A second part goes to transitional medical assistance, TMA. Most Members recall that was an essential ingredient in welfare reform. It provides individuals who are transitioning from welfare to work additional coverage and medical assistance to them during that transitional period. A third category is it applies and uses money for abstinence education to fund those block grant programs for 3 months. These are programs that States have launched to try to sustain the abstinence approach and it has been a successful program and would fund it for and additional 3 months. The fourth category, the one we heard a lot of talk about at the beginning of this debate, was that it does provide $500 million to the three States most severely affected by Hurricane Katrina, that is, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, for assistance in paying unemployment compensation. It provides $400 million to Louisiana, $85 million to Mississippi, and $15 million to Alabama. I think that is an appropriate way to spend part of the resources, and we then apply the remaining $150 million to reducing the Federal deficit. Now, I would remind my colleagues that if they did not like the provisions or did not think the provisions for the unemployment compensation were adequate, our counterpart across the way passed by unanimous consent a bill that addressed these other areas, but had no provisions for unemployment compensation at all in their legislation. We are hopeful they will accept our version of it. In conclusion, I remind Members who forget, we have appropriated over $60 billion in emergency assistance for hurricane victims, the largest single appropriation for emergency disaster relief that this Congress has ever voted for. Some of the speakers seem to forget we have done that. What we are doing here for unemployment compensation is only a small part of a very, very large package; but it is an essential part of it. We hope that this body, the House as a whole, would do as we have seen the Senate do: they approved their version by unanimous consent. I would urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.