Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today during Black History Month to recognize the many important contributions African Americans have made to our nation. We especially honor the extraordinary people who continue to help shape our community and our great nation. I have the privilege of representing thousands of successful and talented African Americans here in the second congressional district of Nebraska. Today I would like to recognize four individuals: Frank Hayes, Phyllis Hicks, Dr. Mary J. Clinkscale and Dr. Herb Rhodes. Frank Hayes is a CPA who owns his own business. He is also a founding member and first president of the 100 Black Men organization, which is dedicated to improving the lives of youth. He has worked tirelessly to help minorities start their own businesses. Since 1967 Phyllis Hicks has run the Salem Stepping Drill Team and continues to be a volunteer and chief fundraiser for this youth group. Through her outreach she has helped many youth overcome obstacles such as discrimination. Dr. Mary J. Clinkscale, or ``Dr. C'' as she is commonly referred to, is the administrator of the Greater Beth-el Temple where she has planned, produced and directed more than 250 theatrical productions and presentations, including a performance to prelude the Tuskegee Airman receiving their Congressional Gold Medal. Dr. Herb Rhodes has been a life-long member of the Omaha Business Community. He was featured in a 1975 issue of Ebony Magazine, which highlighted successful African Americans leading the way in the business industry. He not only has had success in the business community, but continues to be a role model in our city.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As coauthor with Mr. Doyle, I too rise in support of H.R. 1147, and it was my pleasure to come to this floor to discuss legislation that is the product of great bipartisanship. Congressman Doyle and I teamed up in working on this low-power FM legislation, and the product that we have today here on the floor is a good one. We do believe this bill has the potential to revolutionize what Americans hear on their radios and that it will provide an exciting new platform for citizens to communicate with one another within their own local communities and neighborhoods. Low-power FM radio offers people at the local community level the opportunity to broadcast when otherwise they may not afford to do so. This is extremely important for noncommercial groups like schools, churches, neighborhood organizations. The ability of those groups to broadcast their message contributes greatly to the overall betterment of our community and society as a whole. Many local and statewide organizations are interested in obtaining low-power FM licenses, including the following two in my district in Omaha, Nebraska. Wes Hall, who is the CEO of Suntaman Communications, says this legislation is a dream come true. ``You cannot build a community without a cohesive voice, and this will give a voice to the voiceless.'' He went on to say: ``Low-power FM is the beacon that lights up the future for us, and bravo to Lee for championing''--well, I don't have to read that part. But Wes Hall has been involved in the LPFM issue for years and believes this legislation is the light that allows communities to come together. ``This is very exciting news,'' said 100 Black Men of Omaha, Nebraska, President Tim Clark. ``Communities across the country will now have a real opportunity to increase the ability to effectively communicate issues, concerns, awareness campaigns, and to provide sensitive programming. North and South Omaha will benefit positively from this challenge to develop unified efforts for the betterment of their constituents.'' I appreciate both Wes' and Tim's work on this issue as well as other groups devoted to fulfilling the interests and needs of our community. I do believe this legislation is about empowering individuals who are making a difference in Nebraska. As a Member who, back in 2000, voted in favor of legislation to require a minimum of four intervals between radio stations, I'm proud today to be able to stand by my friend from Pennsylvania as well as all LPFM advocates in a bipartisan way in support of this legislation. The authorization of the MITRE study really was important, and now we definitively know that there will be no interference caused by reducing the required separation between new LPFM broadcasts and existing full- power broadcasts. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important community- based legislation, and I am looking forward to it being enacted into law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate your efforts, Mr. Doyle. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Doyle mentioned a variety of religious organizations that support this, and I found the same thing in my community. I want to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) who, in fact, wants to speak on that aspect of our low-power community radio.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 55 and encourage the designation of National Prader-Willi Syndrome Awareness Month. Prader-Willi syndrome is a complex genetic disorder that can cause life-threatening symptoms such as an extreme and insatiable appetite. Often resulting in morbid obesity, Prader-Willi syndrome occurs in males and females equally and in all races. Estimates of the prevalence of Prader-Willi syndrome vary, with the most likely figure being 1 out of every 15,000 children. Children with PWS have sweet and loving personalities, but they are also characterized by weight-control issues and motor development delays, along with some behavior problems and unique medical issues. PWS typically causes low muscle tone, short stature if not treated with growth hormone, incomplete sexual development, and a chronic feeling of hunger that, coupled with a metabolism that utilizes drastically fewer calories than normal, can lead to excessive eating and life-threatening obesity. The food compulsion requires constant supervision on the part of the family members, along with regular attention to many of the other difficult symptoms. It is the commitment of researchers and health professionals that has led to effective treatments and, hopefully, an eventual cure for the families afflicted by this disorder. I would like to thank Representative Royce from California for his commitment to raising awareness about Prader-Willi syndrome. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. TERRY. We have no further speakers and, therefore, encourage the passage of this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Diabetes Caucus and throughout most of the 1990s, I was a member of our regional diabetes board for the ADA. In fact, I call myself a perpetual vice chairman of our region. So it is with great pride that I am here in support and that I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 35. I want to recognize the 23.6 million Americans who suffer from diabetes. Diabetes can lead to serious complications and premature death, but people with diabetes can take steps to control the disease and to lower their risks of complications. The Centers for Disease Control has stated that the progression of diabetes among those with prediabetes is not inevitable, and studies have shown that people with prediabetes who lose weight and who increase their physical activity can prevent or delay diabetes and can return their blood pressure to near normal. Through regular exercise and a steady diet, Americans can return to a healthier state of living and can avoid diabetes. Because diabetes affects individuals in different ways, it is important that we educate our communities about the causes and about effective ways to avoid diabetes through living a healthy lifestyle. Additionally, we must continue to research the causes, treatment, education, and eventual cure for diabetes through public and private partnerships. I do believe that the 1,000-page health reform bill, which was rushed through the House of Representatives by the other side of the aisle to establish a government takeover of health care, will negatively impact those with diabetes and will severely curtail our ability to find a cure. I fail to see how a massive government takeover of our health care system and how the creation of scores of new bureaucracies will revitalize our economy or will give Americans better care. Instead, the House Tri-Committee bill would ration health care like it is done in the U.K. and Canada. This rationing of health care will not be better for the patients. It will lead to many diabetics in need of dialysis and care who will be turned away or who will have longer wait times when they need access to physicians. In addition to nearly a $1 trillion health reform bill which was pushed on the American public, the recent stimulus legislation provided an extra $10 billion of funding to the NIH for the advancement of scientific research. Unfortunately, long-held processes on the length and structure of trials have been ignored in order to spend the funds as quickly as possible and in as many Congressional districts as possible. Instead of rushing to spend billions of dollars for a political photo op, it would have been more responsible, both scientifically and fiscally, to continue to have the NIH determine what trials' processes deserve the most merit. If we hadn't rushed to spend in the name of ``stimulus,'' I believe that some of the $10 billion could have been used for research into type 1 diabetes. I want to see Americans recognizing the significance of monitoring their own and members of their families' health in getting the proper and timely treatment for diabetes. I would also like to see, through public-private partnerships, a continued commitment to diabetes research so that, one day, we may have a cure. I would like to thank the sponsor of this bill, Representative Gene Green from Texas, for his work on this resolution. I stand, once again, in support of this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, from my activities in the Diabetes Caucus, I have learned that, as I stated in the main statement, that education, nutrition, and exercise leads to prevention of much of type 1 and type 2. Today is the sixth anniversary of the Medicare and Medicaid Reform Act that was passed in 2003 on a nearly partisan vote. It was then that we recognized that the Republicans, who authored that bill, supported that bill and that actually this is the first time that Medicare would pay for education, nutrition counseling. I thought it was very odd that under Medicare for a diabetic, that Medicare would pay for an amputation or kidney dialysis, but it wouldn't pay $150 to prevent those from happening by way of education, diabetic education classes, which included nutrition and exercise and such. We have come a long way in recognizing prevention. Certainly we don't need the government, through its history of not wanting to cover preventive care--I think we could do a better job within the private side or free enterprise side. We don't need government running health care to make sure that people that are in need of diabetes education, nutrition, a dietician, exercise, counseling, could receive that. I again want to thank Gene Green for bringing this much-needed resolution. Once again, I rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which will provide for the construction of a vehicle maintenance branch at the National Zoo to benefit the zoo and larger Smithsonian Institution operations. The course of action prescribed by this bill is the result of a careful analysis of alternatives, which has demonstrated that the onsite construction of a vehicle maintenance facility would prove to be, roughly, 40 percent cheaper than developing an offsite facility. Additionally, this bill will provide for the better environmental stewardship in the operations of the National Zoo and of the Smithsonian Institution. I want to thank Mr. Becerra for bringing this forward. Accordingly, I request that my colleagues on this side of the aisle support this suspension. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank Mr. Lungren for his efforts on this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act. This legislation will preserve our ability to regulate the importation of low-level radioactive waste produced in U.S. facilities such as clothing and items that are used in hospitals, research facilities, and nuclear power plants. These low-level waste products are generated throughout the country, including Nebraska, which has two nuclear power plants and several medical facilities that generate these low-level waste materials that require processing and storage. This legislation would bar the NRC from issuing licenses authorizing the importation of foreign low-level radioactive waste, unless waived by the President to meet national or international policy goals. It also exempts waste generated by the U.S. government or the military. The United States is the only nation that allows imports of low-level radioactive waste from other countries. If we do not impose the ban on importation, the United States could easily become the preferred dumping ground for low-level radioactive waste from around the globe. This could be a problem since 36 states that do not have access to a waste compact--like Nebraska--have access to only one disposal site located in the State of Utah. Also, 94 out of 104 commercial nuclear plants in the United States us the same commercial facility as those 36 states to dispose of their low-level waste. Mr. Speaker, we should not become the low-level radioactive waste disposal dump for the entire world. Other countries that are now using or developing nuclear power and have medical facilities generating this waste should build and operate their own storage facilities and not put American communities at risk for taking care of this radioactive waste. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 515.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is really any debate whether on one side or the other. This side supports a permanent fix to SGR. The argument here today, and the dispute here today is that we have, what, $270 billion that is not being paid for or offset properly. If we are going to be about fiscal responsibility and protecting the future of our kids by not piling on deficit and then debt onto them, this is where the buck stops, literally, here today is that we need to pay for this, not just put it to the deficit and the debt. But I keep hearing the talk about seniors here. We want to make sure that they have complete access to their health care, but I have to point out the irony that at 11, 11:30 a week ago last Saturday, they took a vote to cut half a trillion dollars out of Medicare and move it to a new plan away from seniors. I think we need to talk about the irony here and who is really standing up for the seniors.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 648.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make the House aware of a seemingly silent crisis facing millions of Americans and to offer a potential solution. I am talking about the problem of personal medical debt, and the critical need for medical debt counseling. As a result, thousands of Americans in my state of Nebraska and throughout our nation are facing extremely difficult choices that severely impact their quality of life, and sometimes life itself. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are aware that medical debt is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. Let me say that again: 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies are the result of crushing medical debt. I know that my colleagues would agree that this is an astonishing, and indeed, an embarrassing statistic for our country. In most cases, those who suffer from serious medical debt are people with chronic diseases who have just enough insurance to be considered insured. While they may technically be insured, the fact of the matter is that in reality they are severely underinsured. Simply put, they are faced with some extremely difficult choices between whether to pay their medical bills or pay for their basic needs. For example, someone with a chronic disease who is saddled with extremely high medical debt may have to choose between paying their mortgage or putting food on the table and paying the bill for life-saving treatments for their disease. It is not hard to understand that when faced with these kinds of options more than half the time people chose to declare bankruptcy. That means that hospitals take a loss, individuals who have declared bankruptcy ruin their credit, and the American people in the end typically pay for it all. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we can help fix this crisis with medical debt counseling. The idea behind medical debt counseling is simple: Create a network of non-profit organizations that provide counseling services specifically for medical debt. The nonprofit counselors will provide the participants with a number of options long before the idea of bankruptcy is even considered. This is a win-win for everyone. A person can avoid bankruptcy, and a health care provider such as a hospital or doctor, can receive payment for their services. Nonprofit organizations with expertise in helping under-insured people with chronic diseases manage their burden, such as the Chronic Disease Fund which assists people in my state, should be put on the front lines of providing effective medical debt counseling. They are the experts which are best equipped to provide effective counseling so that individuals will not be forced into declaring bankruptcy because of their medical debt. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the pending health care reform legislation that would help encourage medical debt counseling. This brings me to an important point. Because we have moved so fast on health care reform legislation, good ideas like medical debt counseling are not part of this bill. We need options like this for health care reform because it will work to save the American taxpayer money. Medical debt 2 counseling will reduce the cost burden on the health care system, not increase it. And medical debt counseling is innovative. It is innovation like this that made America's health care the best in the world. Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like yours, provide for their families but they live on a tight budget. When faced with the reality of making a huge medical bill payment or putting food on the table, what do you think they are going to do? We can help them avoid this terrible scenario. Again, 60 percent of bankruptcies in this country are because of crushing medical debt. We can help lower the number of personal bankruptcies across this great nation, but to do so we need to encourage a system of medical debt counseling.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. But in fairness, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country. These provisions were one of the few areas in the bill adopted on an overwhelming bi-partisan vote for the Eshoo-Inslee-Barton (EIB) amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement. I wish we could remove this provision from this fatally flawed piece of legislation and consider it separately because it would pass with the kind of overwhelming bi-partisan support that Americans across the country wish to see. However, these provisions are only the first step in a long path to the marketing of these new products. New research and clinical testing will have to occur and the FDA will write rules that will ensure this research is done safely and effectively. One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. As this new market launches in the United States, we need to ensure that we foster innovation and ensure the safety of any new product brought to the market.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that skyrocketing health care costs do exist, causing a number of Americans to become uninsured. But instead of addressing these issues, the Speaker has offered us a bill that dramatically overhauls the present health care system. It injects government into every corner of health care decision- making, from arming the Health Choices Commissioner with unprecedented power to dictate coverage and influence costs, to imposing crushing taxes on small businesses. It transfers $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid and imposes mandates on States by expanding Medicaid, which will then trickle down and force the States and the localities to increase taxes, really masking the true cost of this massive $1.2 trillion bill. There is a better way that we can accomplish providing Americans with affordable health care.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I want to talk about the cold war that has been created in the House of Representatives over this health care bill. This is my 11th year here, and I have never seen this House so divided and vitriolic. It is intense around here, and it doesn't have to be this way. We have heard speech after speech from my friends on the other side of the aisle saying that we, because we oppose government involvement in our health care and a $1.2 trillion price tag, that somehow we want people to die, we don't want there to be or somehow we support the preexisting exclusion in contracts or caps or insurance dumping. Frankly, when you get past that level of vitriolic leadership- supported rhetoric, what you find out is that we actually agree on a lot between the two sides. We just haven't been able to actually discuss a real bill between us because the Republicans have been shut out. We are angry about that. I think that is the root or part of the problem with this health care bill, is that we have not been involved in its shaping at all. For example, the bill that I supported or drafted and is up in Rules Committee and may be heard at 1, 2 or 3 in the morning, I guess, specifically forbids the use of a preexisting clause in a contract, that eliminates the caps that have been put on, either yearly or lifetime, that prevents the dumping. These are the type of things that we tend to all agree on, but we can't work together to get those done that have been identified as part of the problem. Another part of the problem that I think we all agree on is the high price of the policies in health care in general prevents many people from being able to access or purchase health insurance. Therefore, not being able to access as well as many others the health care system. But there are ways to deal with that as well. The GOP alternative, and the one I put in, allows people to be packaged together in large groups. We attack the underlying costs of health care, and we make it more affordable and policies available to a lot more people by doing that. Mine is a replication, an exact identical twin of what we have as Federal employees and Members of Congress. And that is 9 million people. I agree with the insurance exchange idea where you can put maybe 15 million people that are uninsured, don't have access to one large group and let the private sector compete for them. This has been found by most economists to really dramatically reduce the costs by buying in bulk in the competition, and those two principles are embraced in the alternatives. But I want to break down a little bit where we start separating, because really the real problems between the philosophical basis for our bill boils down to the public option. Theirs has a public option where it involves the government in health care. It sets up, and if you read the bill and understand how it works, you see where we will have a single-payer, totally-run-by-the-government health care system within 10 years. I oppose that. I ran on individual liberties, not growing government. That is where we are going to hopefully have the debate tomorrow, instead of the rhetoric that we have heard to date. This is not only on the principles of big government versus limited government, individuals and patient rights versus big government and centralized leadership over health care, but it is also going to be a debate about $1.2 trillion or more. And even some of this, there is additional costs that are even hidden. Let me just give you one before I yield back my time. In order to help insure the lower-income people right above the poverty mark, this bill tomorrow moves Medicaid from 100 percent of poverty as the eligibility cutoff to 150 percent. Why is that? Why do I say that is a trick? Well, it is good that they get uninsured, but ours would allow them access and probably a little bit of support to be able to help them. What this does then is shifts those costs to the State. Because Medicaid, most of the dollars for Medicaid people are borne by the State. So the price tag for this bill is actually higher. One of the things that we are going to hear is, yes, they soak the rich, which involves a lot of small businesses, but the middle-income people are the ones that are going to get hit when they put these burdens on the States. When the States, like Nebraska, have to come up with tens of millions of more dollars at a time when we are in a special session trying to figure out how to balance that budget, the reality is they are going to have to raise taxes, and that is sales taxes and property taxes. So this bill trickles down to the local levels by forcing the States to have to expand their Medicaid coverage, hiding the costs, the true costs of this bill, but also is going to increase the local taxes. I think that is unfair and I think the American public needs to know about some of these little nuances or even tricks, as I would call them. So I stand up in opposition to the health care bill; and when hopefully this bill is defeated or can't get the votes, then we can come together in a bipartisan way and fix the problems that we all agree on and we can actually help the American public, as opposed to creating this large new bureaucracy.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this resolution and commend my friend and colleague and classmate from Oregon. He and I share something. We both have children about similar ages, elementary school, now middle school ages. I can't think of anything more horrific than your children dying when the buildings collapse upon them and the frustration of a parent who just wants answers. When I think about those buildings collapsing on those children, I can't help but think about the incompetency of a large centralized government that's in charge of every facet of their economy. Here we are faced this weekend with a debate of whether or not we're going to move our government in that same direction, of building a huge bureaucracy, one that is separated from the people, one that will be a thousand miles away, that won't really have the passion or interest, other than just passing paper around desks, and realizing that their lack of interest allows for this waste and the fraud and the abuse that's inherent in the buildings that collapsed in Sichuan. I fear that as we grow our massive government and bureaucracy to manage the government's portion of the health care taking over 18 percent of our economy, we're going to have to live with that level of incompetency, fraud, waste and abuse. Think of those schools collapsing and that equaling how our health care is going to be run in this country. Another thing that the gentleman from Virginia said--and I want to associate myself with his remarks--this is a $1.2 trillion bill. Yeah, they raise a lot of taxes to be able to pay for it. Some of it's $500 billion out of Medicare. My worry is that that $500 billion out of Medicare really isn't going to be cut. It's just going to go to our national debt. Therefore, we're going to have to rely on China to buy that debt from us. Again, relying on it. Notice that this resolution condemns the action of the Chinese Government for their humanitarian violations, but there are no penalties here. See, when they're our creditors and they own us like they do and will continue to own more of us when we have to sell our debt to them, it limits our abilities to sit down and negotiate with them. Did you notice that the last couple of administration officials that have gone, or even congressional officials that have gone, to China haven't brought up human rights violations with China? Well, that's because they know they've got us by the economics. We can't do that or they could do such things as flood the world's economy with our debt, ruining our dollars and further jeopardizing our economy and more jobs. But then again, maybe the bright side of this health care bill, perhaps costing as many as 5.5 million jobs, is that they can go to China and help rebuild Sichuan.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. It is about the spending. People back home are asking me, How much is enough for you? Another $1.2 trillion bill in this national takeover of our health care. I think this is the third $1 trillion bill of this year at a time when we have almost a $2 trillion deficit this year. Now, we can't raise enough tax dollars, we can't cut Medicare enough from our seniors to cover this cost. Everyone but the best Kool-Aid drinkers around know this bill is going to add to our national debt. Soon--and maybe by next year at the rate that this Congress is spending--our national debt will equal the size of our GDP, which is what the economists say is the tipping point that is going to drag our economy down. What does this mean? It means that my children and your children are going to pay this off with fewer opportunities than we have today. We are going in the wrong direction for the dream for our children in America.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I am introducing the Simple Universal Health Care Act, a plan which will let the uninsured opt into a system which is an identical twin to the health care that we have in Congress. This plan removes restrictions on preexisting conditions. It allows employers to opt in and maintain the current tax benefits for providing coverage. The administrative costs will be around $15 million, not billion, not $1.2 trillion, and would be paid for by the insurance companies, leaving the taxpayers with no cost. This plan offers a variety of options, and companies compete for customers, thus holding down the cost and maximizing benefits without a government takeover of health care, without using taxpayer dollars, without taking money from Medicare or raising taxes on small business. The SUH Act is a simple, affordable private-sector approach to making sure all people have access to health insurance, and I encourage Members of both sides of the aisle to support this simple solution.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3663, a bill to delay the date for accreditation of durable medical equipment suppliers for 90 days. I want to thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Space) for bringing this legislation to the floor today and to correct a provision in the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. That law, which was approved by the House last year, required suppliers of durable medical equipment, DME, to get accreditation before applying to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to meet the quality standards before being awarded a contract under the Medicare DMEPOS competitive bidding program. The law carved out an exemption for certain physicians and other treating practitioners and also gave the Secretary of HHS the authority to exempt others. By regulation, CMS determined that pharmacists would fall under this exemption and not be required to obtain accreditation in order to sell durable medical equipment to consumers. Brick and mortar pharmacies, however, would be subject to CMS accreditation under the CMS rules. The bill would fix this problem and extend the period of time for CMS to complete the accreditation process for those pharmacies that have filed their paperwork. The bill also includes language clarifying that the 90-day extension would not apply to those suppliers wishing to participate in competitive bidding for certain durable medical equipment. The issue that is facing us here today is that only about 43 percent of the pharmacies have actually had their inspection and review, leaving 50 percent of them out there dangling because of the backlog from the inspections. So hopefully within the next 90 days from this extension, we'll be able to get caught up, and all of them will be able to continue to sell durable medical goods to the patients who require such goods. Therefore, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this. Again, I want to thank Mr. Space, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Barton, and Mr. Pallone for acting so quickly on this when Mr. Space and I brought it up last week for attention. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his kind comments. I appreciate it very much, and I enjoyed working with him. At this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), one of the co-chairs of the House Pharmacy Caucus.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I think for the TV viewers, it's important to note that Mr. Yarmuth isn't that short. It's that the bat is that big. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.