Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from being used to operate the Medicaid Commission. I think we want to know what the facts are, because it is pretty much a consensus of opinion in this country that Medicaid and Medicare are going to be even greater costs than Social Security down the road. Therefore, this commission is tasked with producing recommendations to have a $10 billion saving in Medicaid. We all say we want to keep the Federal budget under control. Well, one of the things you do is get information, and that is what this commission is all about. I do not think we want to doom it to failure before it even begins its work. I would point out that our authorizing committees are struggling to develop reconciliation savings that include Medicaid, and they need the input of the commission. What we need to do is to look at it and see where we can save money, and I think it would be a poor management decision to preclude their ability, the ability of Health and Human Services and Secretary Leavitt, to address a very serious problem that affects all Americans significantly. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment if it comes to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that I think it is vitally important that we have a commission to look at the whole Medicaid program, because it is getting extremely expensive. And we want to have the best possible information and ideas as the Congress prospectively tries to address the burgeoning costs of Medicaid, and, of course, as a corollary to that Medicare. They are tasked with producing recommendations to achieve $10 billion in Medicaid savings. And I cannot believe the body would not want to at least have a commission to look at the problem that is obviously looming on the horizon. Mr. Chairman, therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this if it were to come to a vote. We are going to be confronted with some very difficult choices in the future, as we found out on the Social Security issue. And I think the Medicaid-Medicare issue will be even more challenging in the years ahead. And so now is the time to get as much information, as many ideas as we possibly can, to address a very difficult problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), both of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I, too, agree that Pell grants are a fundamental part of our efforts to ensure low- and middle-income students have the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education. As the gentlemen have pointed out, Republicans have a proud history of providing funding for the Pell grant program. I am particularly pleased that in this bill, we will erase the $4.3 billion shortfall that had existed within the program, and put the program on a solid financial footing. We are also increasing the Pell grant maximum award to $4,100, the highest level in the history of the program, and it is very evident from the chart there. And I would point out that if you take a look at that chart, where we became the majority party in 1994, and you can see the rapid ascendency of the Pell grant program. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) is aware, increasing the Pell grant maximum award, even incrementally, is costly. Each $100 we add is estimated to cost $420 million. As the number of low-income students pursuing college continues to increase, the demand for Pell grants will grow as well. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to provide the resources necessary to help low- and middle-income students gain access to college through Pell grants. As for the conference negotiations, obviously I cannot guarantee any particular outcome. However, I will make a good-faith effort to increase the maximum Pell grant award, provided resources are available to do so. I thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy, and I look forward to working with him in the future to continue to support this important program.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes the point that this is legislation; and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.''

Mr. REGULA. We have a point of order pending, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REGULA. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This would prohibit CMS from spending any funds related to using Social Security numbers on a Medicare identification card. It would really interfere with the operation of the current system. This is a long-time use of Social Security numbers. It is an outgrowth of the claims process. I think it is important from the standpoint of avoiding fraud. The cost of converting the system for 43 million Medicare beneficiaries would be substantial, both in beneficiary education, system reprogramming and related costs. While CMS may well convert to some type of an electronic identification system over time, and I think that will happen, in the meantime to try to make a change at this point would be wrong. This amendment would limit their ability to effectively deal with it. And, of course, they have got the new drug benefit to implement. I think it is just the wrong time to start tampering with a system that has been in place for a long time. I would urge Members to vote against that if this amendment comes to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be a conferee, and it is something we probably need to discuss there. But in the meantime, there are 43 million people who are on Medicare. We add 200,000 every month, and I would like to get more information from CMS as to just what impact this would have in terms of cost and their ability to manage the system. The key to this is that we want the system managed as effectively as possible, and all of us as Members hear from time to time from people who are not getting their Medicare claims taken care of or they are having problems with Medicare. So some system of keeping track of these and to identify them, we can imagine with 43 million people, it is not easy. So I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and I would work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in conference to see if there is some way we can refine this language, and I would like to discuss it with the Medicare people, with CMS, to see what the impact would be or whether a workable system that would ensure privacy could be put in place. For that reason I would oppose the amendment if there is a vote on it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to discuss it. I do not think anyone has asked to claim time in opposition at this juncture. As the Members know, the bill already has a provision restricting health programs from paying for impotence drugs for sex offenders. This amendment simply takes the provision a step further by prohibiting the payment for all beneficiaries. The authorizing committee has been discussing it with the Member, and apparently there has been no resolution. So perhaps this is one that Members ought to make a judgment on. I think the issue is fairly clear as it has been framed by the sponsor. And if he were to ask for a vote, that would be an appropriate thing to do at this juncture. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr Chairman, I will not take much time. I think all of the Members are familiar with this. It has been on the docket before. And the problem with this type of an amendment, it goes across the board, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said. There are many great programs in this bill. And the way this amendment is crafted, it hits the good with the indifferent and with those that are maybe not so desirable. So I would oppose the amendment. I would hope my colleagues would agree in voting against this if it were brought up on a roll call vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Barton made the case in opposition to this. And for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words. Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment. There is already language in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that prevents the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from controlling the content of public broadcasting services. I do not see why this language is necessary today. The law is already there. You have different points of view as to what is the characteristics of public broadcasting, and that is conservative, liberal or whatever. I think this amendment is unnecessary in light of current law. Let CPB do its job and stop trying to politicize it. I will point out one further thing. This amendment would negatively impact on CPB's ability to assist in the production of quality educational programming. For example, if this amendment were to be law, if Ken Burns, whom we all are familiar with, were to serve as a consultant to the National Park Service on battlefield conservation, he then would be prohibited from producing any documentaries for PBS or local public TV stations. The amendment would alter public broadcasting's authorization that is presently in the law, and I think it would cripple the abilities of CPB to do what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want it to do, and that is to be an objective medium, to present all sides of every issue, and not attempt to politicize the message. With the present law, it seems to me that there is no need for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against it if we do have a roll call vote.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have asked about time, and it is pretty difficult to just quantify exactly where we will be. We have six or seven amendments yet to go and possibly a motion to recommit. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is indicating there will be, so we can draw our own conclusions as to what kind of a time number we are looking at, with that many amendments and with a motion to recommit. While we are trying to get some of the mechanics here of the en bloc amendment worked out, I would just like to comment that this bill does some really good things in education, and I think this is something that we are all interested in. I do not know if any of my colleagues have read Tom Friedman's book in which he points out the flat Earth, how important education is to the Nation's future. I mentioned yesterday Dave Broder's column in which they polled Americans who said that they thought that the most significant thing in the success of the United States was our educational system. So it was a great thing, and I believe Thomas Jefferson was the person who, and I am not sure of that, who developed the idea of a free public education, which was pioneering at the time because there was not anything like it in the rest of the world. Many others have duplicated it or some copy thereof. But I do think that what we have tried to do with this bill is to emphasize good teachers, good principals, good schools. I have said many times that I have three goals on the committee. One was to get a good teacher in every classroom and with that, a good principal in every building and a good superintendent. Secondly was to lower the dropout rate. I think it is tragic that 32 percent of our students nationwide do not finish high school. Thirdly is to ensure that every child learns to read. I believe that the dropout rate is a result, in part, of the fact that people do not learn to read early in their educational experience. Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Regula

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I would point out to my colleagues, we had the identical amendment last year and it failed by a vote of 315 to 95. So, many of my colleagues have already voted against this amendment. Let me point out, there is no universal mental health screening funded in the underlying bill. This is an inflammatory amendment. It is not necessary. During our hearings, Secretary Leavitt from Health and Human Services told the committee that the administration does not support and has no plans to implement universal mental health screening, and then they made it very clear that in all programming involving kids there is a requirement that parents participate and give their informed consent, and that would be in a different program. We have never proposed in appropriations any program of universal mental screening, and all it does really, this amendment, is to stigmatize the issue of mental health. The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that the funds provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put forward in the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, ``Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America,'' go toward State incentive grants for transformation to support the development of comprehensive State mental health plans, and has absolutely no funding included for universal mental health screening. So the $26 million has nothing to do with this amendment as far as universal mental health screening. As a matter of fact, the President's Commission did not recommend either universal or mandatory mental health screening. So I think it is clear that the President's Commission did not feel this was in any way necessary, and for this reason I oppose the amendment. I think that is why the great majority of Members voted against it last year, and I would urge Members to vote the same way this year on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no privacy concern because no health information is shared. No personal health information can be disclosed to plan sponsors, period, and all plans are covered under the Federal privacy rule, HIPAA, that restricts the use and disclosure of personal health information. Furthermore, plans are only allowed to use the contact information for marketing Medicare prescription drug plans and facilitating beneficiary enrollment. They cannot use the contact information for any other purpose. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.