Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the energy security issues we face and to highlight the important role renewable energy plays in producing reliable electricity and curbing demand for power transmission equipment. Given this importance, we must continue to support initiatives to improve transmission, increase generation nationally and encourage renewable energy and conservation.

Effective renewable energy policy must include the significant invested energy available through greater recycling. Manufacturing recycled products requires, on average, 17 times less energy than manufacturing the same products from virgin materials. In addition to the traditionally understood benefits of recycling as a conservation and waste management tool, recycling is becoming increasingly understood as an energy source available to combat the Nation's growing energy crisis.

For example, recycling aluminum cans saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source. The amount of lost energy from throwing away aluminum and steel cans, plastic PET and glass containers, newsprint and corrugated packaging was equivalent to the annual output of 15 medium sized coal power plants. Increasing the recycling rate of these commodities by 10 percent would save enough energy annually to heat 74,350 million American homes, provide the required electricity for 2.5 million Americans, and save about $771 million in avoid costs for barrels of crude oil. As a result, recycling should be an integral component of our Nation's energy efficiency strategy.

The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 acknowledged the high invested energy content of recyclables. Section 1353 mandated the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a study to determine and quantify the energy savings achieved through the recycling of glass, paper, plastic, steel, aluminum, and electronic devices, and to identify tax incentives that would encourage recycling of such materials. As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I was deeply involved in the creation of this legislation, which I am proud to say was achieved with strong bipartisan participation and support.

The Environmental Protection Agency has shown that recycling saves billions in energy costs and hundreds of millions of tons of raw materials. American companies that engage in the use of renewable resources and recyclable materials are already contributing countless billions of dollars per year to our Nation's energy grid. These companies are engaging in practices that are environmentally friendly and energy conservative.

By harvesting the invested energy in recycling, this country saves tens of millions of tons of ore, coal, trees and billions of dollars in energy costs. Recycling programs offer a means to conserve natural resources, ease the burden on the grid, reduce excessive municipal waste, protect the environment, create jobs, and save energy.

Like the energy drawn from wind or from water behind a dam, recyclable materials contain a vast amount of energy that is available to be harvested. Recyclables possess invested energy, and in order to remain competitive, we must focus on capturing the energy that is already invested in recycling. Through recognition of these policy objectives, we will create the most efficient market-based solutions to ensure a safe, abundant, and stable energy supply to our citizens for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and I thank my distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle for their strong leadership on these issues in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. I want to especially thank full committee Chairman Thomas, Subcommittee Chairman Nancy Johnson of the Ways and Means Subcommittee, and Subcommittee Chairman Nathan Deal of my Health Committee for their leadership on this legislation. It has been an honor to work with all of these folks over the years on the issues, and I am glad that we have some resolution that will help in the years to come.

The legislation before us would ensure continued beneficiary access to quality health issues. This legislation provides significant relief for payment cuts that would have gone into effect for physician services for 2007, and does promote appropriate quality care.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has held a number of hearings to examine how we pay physicians, what we need to think about when we talk about how to pay physicians tomorrow, and how we protect the taxpayer from being billed for unnecessary services. We have heard about flaws in the current physician payment system, and I think it needs to be structurally reformed. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not. We do not have the depth and scope to do that. But we at least hold our physicians harmless in terms of expected cuts that they would have taken otherwise. Hopefully, in the next Congress we can work a bipartisan basis to come up with a permanent solution to some of these physician payment issues.

It is important to fix the problems with physician payment once and for all. The legislation before us today does provide a stabilizing period for physicians. It fills the hole in payments for next year, provides a bonus for those physicians that would report data on quality measures. That is an

important first step, in my opinion. It also helps ensure beneficiary access to quality health care.

I rise today in support of this bill. I hope that the House will pass it and send it to the Senate and that the Senate will also pass it.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Thomas for his leadership. It will be a different Congress in the next Congress without him here in person, but he will always be with us in spirit, and I really, really support the many things that he has done to improve America during his tenure as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. I want to thank Chairmen Thomas, Johnson, and Deal for their leadership on this legislation. I want to specifically thank Chairmen Thomas and Johnson for their leadership over the years on health care issues, particularly the issue of physician payment. It has been an honor to work with you on these issues.

This legislation will help ensure continued beneficiary access to quality health care. This legislation provides significant relief for payment cuts for physician services for 2007 and promotes appropriate, quality care. This year the Energy and Commerce Committee held a number of hearings to closely examine how we pay physicians, what we need to think about when we talk about how to pay physicians tomorrow, and how we protect the taxpayer from being billed for unnecessary services. We heard about the flaws in the current physician payment system that may contribute to overuse of physician services. We heard about the promise of a system that more fairly pays physicians for the necessary services they provide--those that reflect the best quality and efficient care that a physician can provide for any particular patient.

It is important to fix the problems with physician payment once and for all. I believe the legislation today provides an important stabilizing period for physicians. It fills the hole in payments for next year and provides a bonus for those physicians that report data on quality measures. It helps ensure beneficiary access to quality health care. It helps physicians work with us to develop a better payment system, one that provides the right incentives for care rather than the wrong incentives for overuse, and one that recognizes that there are savings accrued when chronic care is managed effectively.

I rise today in support of this bill. In addition to providing help in stabilizing physician payment, this bill extends many important payment provisions that affect access to health care, particularly in rural areas, such as therapy and dialysis services. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 5682 includes language implementing the ``Additional Protocol'' to the U.S. nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The other Body gave its advice and consent for the Additional Protocol in 2004, but without enactment passage of this implementing legislation the Additional Protocol cannot enter into force.

Following the 1991 Gulf War, IAEA member states took steps to strengthen the nuclear safeguards system. This led to the development of a model ``Additional Protocol'' to supplement safeguards agreements and amend verification arrangements. It is designed to improve the ability of the IAEA to detect clandestine nuclear weapons programs in non-nuclear-weapons states by providing the IAEA with increased information and expanded inspection access. As of March of 2006, 110 countries had signed additional protocols, including all the nuclear weapons states, and 78 countries have them in force.

The U.S. is not obligated to accept safeguards under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty or the Additional Protocol. However, the U.S. already allows safeguards to be placed on certain facilities and materials under a voluntary agreement with the IAEA. This underscores our support for the Nonproliferation Treaty. The U.S. signing the Additional Protocol demonstrates that adherence will not commercially disadvantage non-nuclear-weapons states. Under both the voluntary agreement and the Additional Protocol, the U.S. maintains a national security exclusion and the right to manage IAEA access to facilities or information of direct national security significance.

Enactment of this implementing legislation provides the President with authority to permit IAEA inspectors, accompanied by U.S. representatives, access to certain facilities and to information on activities in the U.S. It also authorizes the Department of Commerce and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop implementing regulations and conduct training and trial inspections. Finally, the legislation sets forth procedures for the inspections, similar to those for the Chemical Weapons Convention, and establishes civil and criminal penalties for the failure of U.S. entities to provide such information.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will strengthen our Nation's ability to advance the cause of universal acceptance of increased safeguards and for that reason I urge both Bodies to adopt the conference report and send it on to the President for his signature.

Among the many tributes to our beloved colleague, Henry Hyde, this bill and what it can do for global nuclear security is among the most worthy.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last evening that I will stand before this body, at least for a while, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is still work that I have to do later this evening on several votes that we are still working on with the Senate, and I hadn't intended to speak on this, but I listened to the debate, and I felt compelled that at least one full committee chairman should come and speak in favor of this resolution.

I believe there are 18 standing committees of the House of Representatives, and the staff ratios on the committees is two-thirds Republican because we are in the majority and one-third Democrat because they are in the minority. Since the voters spoke in November, those ratios are going to switch. On the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is one of the larger standing committees, right now there are some 60-odd majority Republican staffers and some 30-odd minority Democrat staffers. Well, the Democrats are going to be staffing up, as they should, but it means that about half the Republican staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee is going to have to seek other employment, which is around somewhere between 30 and 35 people. Now, thanks to an agreement with the majority and the minority leadership of this Congress, for the first time we have agreed if this resolution passes to provide up to 2 months of severance pay for the majority staffers that have to be laid off.

If the Energy and Commerce Committee is reflective of the full Congress and that means that every other committee on the Republican side is losing approximately 30 staffers, that is about 540 staffers. I don't know what the leadership staff decline is, but let us say that is another 60. That is 600 Republicans who through no fault of their own are going to be out of a job December 31. If you take the average salary of about $75,000 or $80,000, and I do not know that that is the average but that is a pretty good guess, we are talking about a severance package, if everybody takes the full 2 months, of $10 million, give or take half a million dollars. I think that is fair.

Now, the question has been raised about this coming up in the dead of night. I read about this in Roll Call earlier this week. I didn't know it was coming up tonight as a resolution, but I read a story in Roll Call that the Speaker, Mr. Hastert, and Ms. Pelosi had agreed to some sort of a severance package. And I instructed my staff that I certainly wanted to apply for the Republicans on the Energy Committee who could take advantage of this.

The reason we do not do it for personal staff is because you are either retiring and the Member knows that his staff has to find a job or you got defeated in an election and a new Member is coming in to take your place. But that office, that district, will still have the same number of staffers in the next Congress. It may be a different Congressman or Congresswoman.

Now, this may not be the perfect way to do it, but it is a good way to try to do it. And I would hope that the Republicans will vote for this because if anybody wanted to be partisan and vote ``no,'' it would be the Democrats. They are adding staff. This is something that benefits the current majority and our most loyal people, some of who could double and triple their salary if they didn't want to work on committees or professional staff. It is a small price to pay. If we need to find a better way to do it in the next Congress, because I certainly hope that I am going to be coming back 3 years from now as chairman of the committee and not as ranking member, let us do it. But let us please vote for this tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3718) to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and pool and spa drainage systems, by establishing a swimming pool safety grant program administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to encourage States to improve their pool and spa safety laws and to educate the public about pool and spa safety, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support tonight of S. 3718, the Pool and Spa Safety Act that has come to this body with the help and the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), and Senator George Allen of Virginia.

This legislation, if the House and Senate pass it this evening, will help to ensure that backyard pools will no longer present an unexpected danger to American children and families.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I would point out to my Republican colleagues, there are no Federal mandates in this bill. There is a consumer product safety standard that would require new pool drain covers that are sold or entered into commerce and installed 1 year after date of enactment of this bill to meet certain safety standards. So there is a safety standard in the bill that is not in current law, but in terms of any mandates on swimming pools that are already in existence, there are no Federal mandates in this piece of legislation. I urge passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is a good piece of legislation. I have a 15-month-old son, Jack Kevin Barton. We have a hot tub in our back yard in Arlington, Texas. We keep it covered at all times unless one of the family is actually using it.

This type of legislation if passed and implemented will make it much more difficult for small children who are unattended and wander out and get into these pools and spas and drown because they are not as safe as they could be. I hope that the House will unanimously pass the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join Chairman Gillmor

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6164) to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the authorities of the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the absolute strongest possible support of passage of the National Institutes of Health Reauthorization Act. This legislation, as amended by the Senate, passed the House by landmark votes several months ago of 414-2. It is not often that we see a bill of this magnitude receive such widespread support in both the House and the Senate.

We should all be proud of ourselves for this bipartisan, bicameral product. This represents the culmination of three hard-fought years spent trying to reauthorize the NIH, a crown jewel of the Federal Government.

When I first took over as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was surprised to learn that such an important agency of our Federal Government had not been authorized for over 13 years. Now I know why. The amount of work required to restructure this agency and at the same time gain the involvement and support of all the stakeholders and advocacy groups has been absolutely breathtaking.

However, having said that, the hard work has paid off, and we now see the fruits of our labors before us this evening. The Energy and Commerce Committee has adopted numerous pieces of legislation in the years that I have served as chairman, but I would not put one piece of legislation, including the Energy Policy Act, which was a very major effort, above the importance of this bill that is before us right now.

I want to thank Congressman John Dingell, the ranking member, soon to be the chairman again of the committee, for his tireless efforts.

I want to thank Anna Eshoo. I want to thank Richard Neal. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader, John Boehner. I want to thank Bill Frist, thank Harry Reid, I want to thank Ted Kennedy. I want to thank Mr. Grassley, I want to thank Mr. Lott, Mr. Harkin. I could go on and on for all the Senators and House Members who have worked to make this legislation possible.

It is truly a bipartisan effort, and a major, major accomplishment of this Congress. I also want to thank the current director at the NIH, Dr. Elias Zerhouni. He has been absolutely astounding in his continual optimistic efforts to approve this bill and to gain support for it.

I want to thank all the stakeholders, over 90 national organizations have endorsed this legislation. I want to thank the major research universities of America for their hard work. I want to thank the 27 institute directors for their hard work.

In conclusion, I ask in the possible strongest terms for the support of every Member of this House to pass H.R. 6164, as amended by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we pass this bill unanimously, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3546) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 3546, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there are no changes on this bill that I am aware of.

We will provide a copy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, I would urge support of the bill. The dietary supplement industry is a mature industry now, and I would estimate over 90 to 95 percent of those in the industry support passage of this bill. There are some segments of the industry that do oppose it.

This is a Senator Orrin Hatch bill. I know that Congressman Cannon here in our body strongly supports it. I would hope that we would pass it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 707) to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of Senate 707, the PREEMIE Act, as amended. This bipartisan bill would expand research into the causes and prevention of premature births, the number one cause of infant deaths in the first month of life, and a serious and growing problem in the United States.

The rate of prematurity has increased more than 30 percent since 1981. We have made vast improvements in treating premature infants, but we have had little success in understanding and preventing premature birth.

The knowledge that we have gained has not been translated into improved perinatal outcomes. As the science stands now, nearly 50 percent of all premature births have no known cause. Scientists are learning more about numerous factors that may play a role in premature birth, ranging from genetic

factors, environmental triggers, and obesity to socioeconomic factors and life stress. All factors that could possibly play a role in premature birth should be explored.

Please join me in acting now to approve this bill and substantially strengthen our Nation's commitment to reducing our spiraling rate of premature births and the often tragic human and societal toll they exact.

At this time, I would like to thank the author of the bill, Mr. Upton from Michigan, for his hard work on this important legislation. I also want to thank Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa for their strong work in the other body on this bipartisan bill.

I urge passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While there is some confusion on this bill, I want to speak in full disclosure on what is in the bill. The primary vehicle before us is a premature infant bill which I think is the number one legislative item for the March of Dimes. As far as I know, there is absolutely no controversy about that bill. I do not know that anybody and any Member opposes that bill.

There is also a contact lens bill that deals with the verification program between 1-800 contact lens providers, mail order contact lens providers, and optometrists on verification of the prescription, and that on that particular bill I would say 90 percent of that has been agreed to by the stakeholders.

The part that is in dispute is exactly mechanically how to verify the contact lens prescription. The bill would give the FTC the authority to conduct a study and report to Congress on how to solve that problem, I believe within 180 days of passage of the bill. The optometrists, or at least some optometrists, do oppose that.

The other item in the bill is an extension of a rule for 6 months dealing with Head Start that Congressman Harkin and Congressman Grassley called about and that I made sure was cleared on both the minority and majority sides at the leadership level and the committee level before I agreed to put that in.

The last thing in this bill is an item dealing with a critical care access hospital in Minnesota that was put in at the request of the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle this evening.

That is the content of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished doctor from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time and urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2653) to direct the Federal Communications Commission to make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 335) supporting the goals and ideals of a National Epidermolysis Bullosa Awareness Week to raise public awareness and understanding of the disease and to foster understanding of the impact of the disease on patients and their families, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1245) to provide for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of women and health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 4092) to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, Colorado, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5472) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide waivers relating to grants for preventive health measures with respect to breast and cervical cancers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

My understanding is the version they have is the version the Clerk has, the 12:50 a.m. version.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3678) to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to public health security and all- hazards preparedness and response, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, please insert this exchange of correspondence on S. 3678 into the Record.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: We write to clarify the intent of Title I

of S. 3678, the ``Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness

Act,'' regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of

the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of

Health and Human Services during Incidents of National

Significance under the National Response Plan (NRP). Title I

of S. 3678 should not be construed to designate the

Department of Health and Human Services as the lead Federal

agency under the NRP during incidents of National

Significance that require a medical and/or public health

response.

The NRP is an all-discipline, all-hazards plan that

establishes a single, comprehensive framework for the

management of domestic incidents. Under the NRP, the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the Federal

department responsible for coordinating Federal operations

and/or resources during Incidents of National Significance,

while the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is

the Federal coordinator and primary agency for Emergency

Support Function 8, Public Health and Medical Services.

Nothing in Title I should be interpreted to change or affect

the existing relationship between DHS as the incident manager

and DHHS as the primary agency for medical services, as

currently defined by the NRP for Incidents of National

Significance.

Rather than amending or otherwise diminishing the existing

responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security under

the NRP, S. 3678 is intended to clarify and more specifically

define the medical preparedness and response authorities of

the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to

the Public Health Service Act.

A copy of this letter will be included in the Record during

consideration of the bill on the House floor and should be

construed as a definitive expression of Congressional intent

on this matter.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security.

Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce.