Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. 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 S. 877.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for his statement and his kind friendship. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. (Mr. Upton asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In concluding, let me, first of all, again signal the extraordinary cooperation that exists between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce as we conclude this debate and also to echo thanks and congratulations the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has extended to so many of our staff and the members who have worked on this. This is a consumer protection piece of legislation. Very often when we come to these consumer protection-type pieces of legislation, we will see this extraordinary bipartisanism and this ability of committees that often have conflicting versions of bills work them out as we have today. This is a huge consumer protection piece of legislation. And I want to say something that I hope all the Federal judges of America will pay attention to tonight very carefully. This legislation specifically authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not Spam Registry. No one should have any doubt about it. It is as clear, it is explicit. When this legislation passes the Congress and is signed into law, the FTC will explicitly have that authority, and a Do Not Spam Registry will be available in our future. I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Of all the members who have put in yeoman hours in time and effort, these three members of our committee have done an extraordinary job. And I particularly, again, want to single out the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) with, again, the bipartisan spirit in which we worked together when we can and do work together so well. This is a good example where America will benefit because we are legislating as Americans and not as party members as we often do on this floor. And I want to thank the gentleman, again, for that respect and that spirit of cooperation that he always extended to the chair and to the management of our committee affairs. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for consumers in America. Very soon a Do Not Spam Registry will be available to them. They will be able to call and have their names put on that registry. People who refuse to pay attention to that registry and spam them regardless will be subject to severe penalties. People who fraudulently continue to spam without identifying who they are, when they are caught, will pay a big price. Attorney Generals and the FTC are given enforcement authority under this compromise, and I think we are affording Americans with a brand new tool to protect themselves against the entry of material they do not want in their homes whether it comes in through the computer, through the telephone, or via the mail. This is a great step forward, and I urge adoption of this bill.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will all bear with me for a second as I tell a short story. I recently accompanied my son, Tom, who is 25 years old, to see the movie ``Matrix,'' the third in the evolution of the ``Matrix'' movies, a rather complex series of movies. Young people follow them, I think, better than my generation; but I try to follow them with him. When we came out of the movie, I said, Son, what did you take from this? What did this mean to you? And he thought a long while and in the car with me he said, what I take from this movie, Dad, is that freedom is meaningless without choice. And I thought about that and I thought, that is pretty profound for a 25-year-old. What he was saying, basically, from this movie, is that if someone else is making all the choices for you, if you are without choice, you are not really free. Freedom, by definition, is choice. It is your capacity to choose for yourself right or wrong what you do with your life. And then it occurred to me how meaningful that little profound conversation we had was and how it relates to this issue tonight. Because we are talking about a generation of Americans who Tom Brokaw called the Greatest Generation of Americans, who fought for this entire world to be free, for we in this country to have freedom of choice in our lives. And every day that we live in freedom, we have that generation to thank for it. And the ironic thing about it, when it comes to their health care, is that so far we have not given them choice. We have basically said if you want health care as you get older, after you fought to give us freedom, we will give you one plan. We will give you the choice of government Medicare. And if it works for you, great; if it does not work well for you, sorry, that is your choice. Every despot, every tyrant, every monarch and feudal lord in medieval time took the attitude that the peasants, the servants were not smart enough to make choices for themselves; that they had to make all the decisions for them. That is the nature of people who think government always knows best and always knows the right answer and people are not wise enough to make good choices for themselves. The essence of this debate tonight is whether we are freedom-loving enough in this body, whether we understand and appreciate the freedoms that they fought for and gave to us, that we can, in the context of health care, give our seniors some real choice about how and where they take their health care and their coverage. Now, it is about adding a significant new benefit to Medicare. It is that. But it is also about creating other choices for seniors. And I brought a picture of my mother with me tonight. I thought about her this evening. It is a small picture, but I wish you could all see it. She is a beautiful lady. She is 85 years old. She chose to remain in Medicare when she had a choice of a private plan in our hometown. She probably is going to choose to remain in Medicare and take her prescription drug benefit from Medicare when this program is completed and we pass this bill and it is signed into law. But I want her to have a choice to choose between that plan and any other plan that might be available, the same way we in this government, the workers and the Members of Congress, have choices to choose different plans for our medical needs. I want Mom to have the same choice. Her generation fought for me to have choices and to make choices, right or wrong. And sometimes it hurt her deeply when I made bad choices, but she always knew I had the right to make them. And people died to give me that right. I think we owe that generation choice. And that is one of the things we do tonight, we give them choice how they take this new benefit. And if they want to choose, like my mother, to stay with Medicare, we fought for the right to make sure it is still in the Medicare bill, and she will have that right. The other thing we did was to make sure if she chooses to have Medicare, that, indeed, it is still going to be around for her for as long as, God willing, she lives. She is a three-time cancer patient. A marvelous woman. She won eight gold medals at the Senior Olympics again this year. She took top place in the shot put. You do not mess with Mamma Tauzin. She is quite a gal. And she will probably choose to take her prescription drugs out of Medicare in this program. But if she ever wants to take it out of one of the PPOs or the new programs we develop out of this bill, I want her to have that choice. She deserves it. She ought to get it. And I think that is why AARP has endorsed our bill, because they know we have gotten a great generous coverage for the low-income American seniors who want to stay in Medicare or who want to choose something else. And we create new plans for seniors and nonseniors to begin saving in their own health accounts; tax free in, tax free out, to build their own long-term care the way they want to design it. And I guess some people do not like that. I guess they think government ought to design it all and say, You got one choice, Mamma Tauzin, and that is it. But I think, I think the benevolent government of the United States of America, respecting the freedom that so many fought and died for to give us choice and freedom, this government now, that we serve as Members of Congress, with such great appreciation of the people who sent us here, we ought to say here in Washington that we return the gift of freedom; that we give seniors more choices, and we give them a brand-new drug coverage program so they do not have to take chances on the Internet or go anywhere else to get drugs they cannot afford, that they can afford them under an insurance coverage here in America, and they can get it under a program they choose to live under. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a valuable, distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the three Members of the House who is an OB-GYN physician, and who happens to know something about health care.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the statement that this bill does not go into effect until 2006 is erroneous. The fact is that the drug discount card is effective immediately when this bill goes into effect early next year. The fact is that $600 per senior for drug costs is allocated immediately, next year. Not only that, but the $1,200 per couple that is allocated for drug costs for seniors is rolled over. If the senior does not use it the first year, they can use it the second year. It becomes a $2,400 benefit for seniors for that second year while the full program is enacted by the year 2006. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is of course correct. That is why we built an ASP, Average Sales Price, plus a percentage to give the smaller oncology units a chance to buy, in case the larger units buy at a lower price, they could at least get coverage on top of the Average Sales Price to reimburse them, but we would always review that to make sure cancer care is indeed preserved.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of our committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to point out that the language that the gentleman just referred to in the bill first appeared in the motion to instruct by none other than the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who offered a motion to recommit H.R. 4680 with instructions that included the very same language that the gentleman is complaining about that was referenced in the Blue Dog meeting. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) for the purposes of colloquy.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, but let me point out that CBO's estimates now indicate that this bill makes oncologists perfectly whole in this first year of the changeover. In fact, for the first 2 years, it is a neutral completely, and oncologists will be getting something like 2\1/2\ to 3 times the practice expense allowance that CMS now estimates they would get under their own data. This bill will actually give oncologists 100 million more dollars than they are currently getting under the old AWP formula this year, 2004, and $100 million less the second year. So it is a total neutral policy for that 2-year period.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. That was an interesting speech, but I got a letter from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that they prepared a preliminary estimate of the impact of the Democratic amendment to H.R. 1, the Democratic plan; and the estimate of CBO of their plan is $1 trillion. So a speech complaining about the fact that we in this House passed a budget that included $400 billion for this important program for seniors is wrong, when the other side prepared an amendment for $1 trillion; that is a little outrageous. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. While he is not here, I think the Members on our side ought to show their appreciation for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the conference who did an amazing job in bringing this excellent bill to the floor for our consideration, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.