[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H318-H324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am going to shift gears a little 
bit right now and just recount a bit of this past week. This has been a 
remarkable week, first week of a new majority.
  For the record, the first 100 hours of this new majority, and for the 
record, Mr. Speaker, you ought to know that the Speaker's Office 
officially states that we have been in session dealing with the issues 
of importance to the American people for 12 hours and 28 minutes. That 
is over 4 days. That turns out to be about 3 hours and 7 minutes a day.
  Now, if you count the actual time that we have been in session, which 
I think is important, because if you are going to promise that you are 
going to do things in 100 hours, then you doggone well better do it, 
and actually, we have been in session now at 6:18 p.m., 38 hours and 21 
minutes, 38 hours and 21 minutes.
  We are keeping track of the right clock. So for all those folks out 
there, we want you to know that The Official Truth Squad is keeping an 
eye on the majority party and making certain that they live up to their 
promises.
  We have dealt with some remarkable issues during the first 38 hours 
that we have been in session. We have dealt with the minimum wage today 
in a way that left a lot to be desired in terms of bringing about that 
wonderful bipartisan spirit that has been promised but not seen yet by 
the majority party. We have dealt with the 9/11 recommendations. As you 
recall, Mr. Speaker, before the election, the new majority party, the 
leaders of that party, promised that they would enact every single 
recommendation of the 
9/11 Commission.
  Well, that bill has come and gone without any input from the minority 
party. As you know, you know very, very well what happened was not the 
enactment of every single 9/11 recommendation, because promises made on 
the campaign trail don't appear to be promises that will be kept in the 
majority.
  These are important issues. We have got two more issues to go this 
week. They are extremely important issues to the American people.
  The issue of stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, which 
is an incredibly important issue, a complex issue, a scientific issue 
and one, again, that I am very distressed and concerned is not being 
dealt with in an open and honest way that has been promised, nor is it 
being dealt with, certainly, in a bipartisan way.
  We also have this week the issue of Medicare part D prescription drug 
program that is in place for Medicare recipients, and that, too, is 
being dealt with in a way that doesn't allow for any input from the 
minority party, doesn't allow for any amendments, isn't being heard in 
committee.
  The gentleman before me mentioned that there were a number of 
freshmen Members of this body, and there are, there are 54 Members of 
this body who are now here for the very first time, freshmen Members. 
They haven't dealt with any of these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, a majority of this House is not being allowed to deal 
with the issues that are coming to the floor right now, because they 
are being done in secret. These bills are being written in secret 
without input from anybody on the minority side and certainly without 
any input from any of the new Members of Congress.
  So the Official Truth Squad is here to make certain that we hold 
accountable for the majority party, for the promises that they made and 
make certain that the American people understand and appreciate what is 
occurring in Washington under this new martial law rule that we have 
for bringing issues to the floor.
  The Official Truth Squad has one of our favorite quotes, we have a 
lot of favorite quotes. One of them is from the late Senator Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan, who had one of the most wonderful and appropriate 
quotes for this building that I know of, and that is that everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
  So what we would like to do this evening, Mr. Speaker, is to talk a 
little bit about some facts, some facts as they relate to the two 
issues, Medicare part D prescription drug program and stem cell 
research, embryonic stem cell research.
  Now decisions made regarding Medicare part D and the discussion that 
we are having, many people will think, well, it is just about a narrow 
prescription drug program for Medicare. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is 
about a whole lot more than that.
  If you back up from the specific debate about prescription drugs and 
you look at what is really being done, what is happening is that we 
have a difference of opinion, a philosophical difference of opinion 
about who ought to be making very personal health care decisions for 
the American people.
  On the other side of the aisle, on the majority side of the aisle, we 
apparently have a majority of those individuals who believe that the 
government ought to be making those decisions, personal health care 
decisions. On the minority, on the Republican side of the aisle, we are 
proud to say that we support health care decisions, medical decisions 
being made between physicians and patients. That is where those 
decisions ought to be made.
  In fact, when you look at this whole issue right now, it is important 
to ask exactly what it is that the Democratic majority is attempting to 
solve.
  When you look at this program that has been in place now just a few 
short years, the costs are down. In fact, the costs are down for the 
last year, $13 billion, $13 billion. Actual costs of benefits in 2006 
are 30 percent or $13 billion less than was projected.
  The projected costs over 10 years are down 21.3 percent, which is 
$197 billion. That is a fact. That is a fact. Premiums are down 40 
percent over projections, again a fact. If we would listen to the 
Democrats on this issue, when the bill was enacted, they attempted to 
put into law that premiums ought to be for every Medicare recipient, 
$35 a month. They wanted to make certain that they were $35 a month.
  So what are the premiums now? They are about $22, $23 a month on 
average.

[[Page H319]]

If we had listened to them when this was enacted a couple of years ago, 
every single senior would be paying on average $12 a month more for 
their prescription medication.
  I would suggest that if the past is prologue, that we ought to be 
very careful about what is coming to the floor this week as it relates 
to Medicare part D. Beneficiaries, those who are using the plan and 
benefitting from the plan, over 80 percent of them, are supportive and 
satisfied with the program. That is with nearly 90 percent of those 
eligible being supportive.
  Again, people are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not 
entitled to their own facts. The costs are down. Access is expansive. 
Medications are being covered across the whole spectrum of disease. And 
seniors are happy.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is it that the Democratic majority is 
attempting to fix? What problem are they trying to solve?
  I am pleased to be joined tonight by a number of colleagues to talk 
about both of these issues. As we talk about Medicare part D, I am 
pleased to welcome my good friend, Congressman Patrick McHenry, from 
the great state of North Carolina who has great experience in 
representing individuals and understanding and appreciating the 
importance of bringing truth to debate.
  I welcome you, Congressman McHenry.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Congressman Price, thank you, Dr. Price. As 
an expert on medical subjects and as someone who has treated thousands 
of patients over his career and saved hundreds of lives as well, a 
humble doctor would not say that; that is why I must say that for you 
here tonight, Tom, because you have done a fantastic job of leading our 
agenda as someone who is very engaged in these medical issues that are 
so important to all Americans, these large health care issues that 
affect every American.
  Today we have had a lot of debate here on the floor about minimum 
wage, about raising the minimum wage. But what is omitted from the 
Democrat's 100-hour agenda and from this debate about raising the 
minimum wage is a matter of access to health care.
  It was a Republican Congress that instituted Medicare part D, and 
which provided a prescription drug benefit for the first time for 
seniors. There was a lot of debate before Congressman Price and I came 
to Congress about the structure of that and how it is going to work. We 
were not a part of that debate because we were not here yet, but we 
were affected by it as Americans and as policymakers here in Washington 
D.C.
  But looking back at that record, Congressman Price brought up a very, 
very strong point. As they are going through the committee process, now 
close to 4 years ago, 3 to 4 years ago, the Democrats wanted to 
guarantee that all Americans would pay $35 per month for their 
insurance premium to get the Medicare part D prescription plan.
  Well, they wanted a guarantee of $35, and they said that the 
Republican plan was going to be too costly, too expensive. The 
Republicans said, you know, what if we actually put this out into the 
free market and provide this plan through market-based forces; in 
essence saying you can compete between different plans, different 
companies can offer this prescription drug benefit, and so they go out 
and they compete for seniors' business? That means a couple of 
different things.
  Instead of waiting in line at the Social Security office for the 
government, because there is no competition because we are government, 
waiting for hours, or waiting on hold for hours with a government 
agency, you have these individual plans. These businesses want to keep 
the business of seniors so they provide better customer service.
  But the additional thing, rather than some government bureaucrat 
sitting here in Washington, D.C., saying you can take Lipitor but not 
Crestor to reduce your cholesterol numbers.
  Well, as a nonmedical expert, I don't know the details of how these 
medications work, but those are the types of people, without a medical 
background, making the decisions on who has access to those types of 
medicine. But the plan we put in place is a little different. The plan 
we put in place said, we are going to have competition in the 
marketplace.
  These plans say to seniors, we will give you choices, choices. Do you 
want to pay $35 a month and have a choice of any medication you want, 
period, or do you want to have a more limited plan with fewer choices 
but you will pay less per month?
  But seniors get to make that choice, not some bureaucrat sitting here 
in Washington, D.C., and not your Congressman. Because, unlike Dr. 
Price, there are very few medical experts here in Congress that can 
make those decisions.
  As my colleague would say, it is not even a good idea for a doctor in 
the House of Representatives to dictate what an individual patient 
could receive in a certain part of Georgia or a certain part of North 
Carolina; much less, it doesn't work. One-size-fits-all doesn't work.
  But what the Democrats put out here on the floor or what they are 
putting out, I should say, later this week, is they want to institute 
price controls, what they call negotiating for Medicare part D.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate your earlier comment. And I want 
to get to what the Democrat plan is, but I want to make certain that 
people appreciate and, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Members of 
Congress appreciate that what we are talking about here is who is 
making decisions.
  And I appreciate you mentioning that not even a physician in the 
House ought to be making the decisions, because the collective wisdom 
here isn't as great in the area of health care in all 435 Members of 
this body than the wisdom that is between a physician and a patient. 
That collective wisdom is greater than the 435 individuals here. And 
when you talk about plans offering programs to seniors to have certain 
medications and there is this big push to have the government 
negotiate, isn't it true that those plans are negotiating already with 
pharmaceutical companies and with pharmacists?
  Mr. McHENRY. It is an excellent point. We are talking about 
negotiating. Who is better at negotiating, somebody sitting at a desk 
in Washington, D.C., employed by the government, or those health care 
experts employed by the companies offering the plans?
  I would submit that the free market will always negotiate better 
prices than some government bureaucrat can ever do. And the fact is 
what the Democrats are going to push will raise premiums for individual 
members or individual constituents.
  So, market forces. The Democrats want to say $35 a month, everyone 
has to pay that for their Medicare part D benefit. Well, you know the 
market forces have created a premium average which you said that gets 
lower and lower. The earlier numbers from a few months ago, the average 
is $24, and here now we are hearing that it is closer to $22 on average 
nationally.
  So we have a couple things, by the way, that free market 
conservatives insisted on this plan being written. It says we will have 
a choice, meaning individuals. Our individual constituents, our 
individual seniors that we represent will have that choice with their 
plans and thereby have a choice over the medications that they can 
access.
  The second thing is lower prices, meaning that taxpayers don't have 
to pay extra money and seniors don't have to pay extra money. It is a 
wonderful bargain, it is a great idea, and this is something that we 
need to talk about, not some sham or idea that is a political red 
herring. We need to talk about the choices that seniors are given and 
the price savings that they receive.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Choice is so very important. And when our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about negotiation and 
the government negotiating, I just almost chuckle. If it weren't that 
they were serious about doing this, it would be humorous. It really 
would.
  Because if you think about negotiating with the Federal Government, I 
don't know, Mr. Speaker, how many times you have had an opportunity to 
negotiate with the Federal Government, but when I think about 
negotiating with the Federal Government, whether it is the IRS or the 
Post Office, when you think about negotiating

[[Page H320]]

with the Post Office those aren't folks that one would think are going 
to be warm and fuzzy and interested in your best interests, Mr. 
Speaker, or the American people's best interests.
  Mr. McHENRY. The fact that you said just strikes me as so funny. 
Think about negotiating with the Post Office and the IRS. As an average 
taxpayer, think about the IRS. They say you are going to do this or we 
are going to send you to jail. Talk about compelling individuals to 
submit.
  Now, here is what I think is interesting about this is like 
negotiating with the IRS: You will pay the price no matter what, and 
there is only one consequence, you going to jail or you paying. But 
with this plan, the market forces will have a ripple effect on long-
term cures and long-term medical technologies coming on the market, and 
I think that is the devastating impact. It is not just a jail sentence. 
It is actually a sentence for all Americans to have less access, less 
choice, and less long-term cures and benefits from the wonderful cures 
that the pharmaceutical industries have created over the last two 
generations.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And when you mention the decrease in quality of 
care and the decrease in access to care, people say, well, that is just 
smoke and mirrors. That is just conjecture. But if you look at programs 
that have had the effect of price fixing, and we can look at programs 
in our own Nation. You can look at them around the world and give grand 
examples for how you decrease access and decrease quality of care to 
individuals in health care, again, those very personal decisions.
  But if you want to look at something in this Nation where the 
government has stepped in and said, okay, we are going to fix prices, 
all you have to do is look a few short years back to the Vaccine for 
Children's program, something incredibly important to the American 
people, something incredibly important to the health of our Nation. In 
the early 1990s, there were about 30 or so pharmaceutical companies 
that were making vaccines, and they were aggressive and active in their 
research and development. The vaccines had a varying price depending on 
the disease that they were attempting to cover or to prevent, and the 
government came in and said, oh, those prices are too high. Those 
prices are too high. In fact, in order to provide vaccines for every 
single child and individual in this Nation we are only going to allow 
you to charge this much. That was in 1993 or 1994.
  Well, 12, 13 years later, remember, Mr. Speaker, there were about 30 
or so pharmaceutical companies making vaccines. Do you know how many 
there are now? Three. Three.
  Mr. Speaker, men and women and children all across this Nation know 
the difficulties that they have had oftentimes in getting their 
vaccines, and that is due to a lot of things but not the least of which 
is the intervention of the Federal Government and price fixing which 
always, always decreases the quality and decreases the access.
  Mr. McHENRY. I have got a question, Congressman Price, from a medical 
perspective. Could you give an example? Because we are talking about 
not just price but choice and the opportunity for patients to make a 
decision with their medical experts, their doctor, their own doctor 
about what is the best pharmaceutical for them to take. Could you give 
us some examples?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that. And it is such an important 
question, because of the premise of all of this from a policy side. You 
take away the politics, but from a policy side the premise of all of 
this presumes that every single patient is just like every single other 
patient and they are just kind of little blocks that move along, and 
all you have to do is recognize what disease they have or what problem 
they have and you just determine exactly by algorithm what they need 
and so that a bureaucrat can determine that.
  In fact, that is not the way health care works. That is not the way 
medicine works. That is not the way patients work. Mr. Speaker, you 
know as well as anybody that patients are different. Each and every 
individual patient is different, and what may work in one patient 
doesn't necessarily work in another.
  I can give you a real-life example from working in the VA, which is 
touted as being a wonderful program, as an example for what the other 
side, what the majority party is trying to do to Medicare part D.
  When I worked in the VA, and I had an opportunity to do that for a 
number of years, we were given a list of medications that were 
available for use in patients. And if you as a treating physician 
determined that the patient wasn't responding to the medication that 
was on that list; I am an orthopedic surgeon and treated hundreds of 
patients if not thousands of patients through the VA, and whether it 
was a pain medication or whether it was an anti-inflammatory medication 
or an antibiotic, something that can truly be life and death, and it 
wasn't working and you needed to use something that wasn't on that 
list, it was virtually impossible to get the right medication. And that 
is how you decrease the quality of health care, decrease access to 
quality of health care for patients, and that is precisely what will 
happen for 43 million, at least, seniors; and the ripple effect will 
occur throughout the entire Nation.
  Mr. McHENRY. I have another question. So we are going through this 
whole process of debate, and let's just hope that this is not an empty 
promise or empty rhetoric for the campaign, this idea of negotiating 
price controls, which certain of us have this hunch that maybe it is 
just empty rhetoric. But to confirm that it is not empty rhetoric, 
Congressman Price, I know you are very much in tune with the fiscal 
issues of this House and this Nation. Certainly there is going to be 
some benefit to the taxpayers and to consumers if the Democrats pass 
their plan. Do you have any facts on that?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman bringing that up. 
Because if you ask the individuals who are objective experts in this 
area and you go either to CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, or in Congress we go to CBO, Congressional Budget Office, 
there are some very interesting findings. And these are folks that 
really don't have a dog in this hunt from a policy side. They are 
charged with giving us objective information.
  And the CMS actuary, the individuals who are charged with determining 
what a program is going to cost, said, regarding having the government 
``negotiate'' on this, ``Price negotiations between plan sponsors and 
drug manufacturers would achieve comparable or better savings than 
direct price negotiation. This expectation reflects the strong 
incentives to obtain low prices and pass on savings to beneficiaries 
resulting from competition.''
  And CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, which is charged with 
providing accurate information, Mr. Speaker, to both Democrats and 
Republicans, both sides of the aisle, they provide the same kind of 
information. They attempt to provide objective and accurate 
information, and what they said was, ``We expect that risk-bearing 
private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts 
for such drugs and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate 
prices that further reduce Federal spending to a significant degree.''
  So those are the two main folks that we look at to determine what the 
costs of this program will be that is being proposed by the other side 
of the aisle, and in fact what they say is that it will not be as 
inexpensive as that currently in place.
  Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman has a wonderful point, because we had this 
meeting which I was happy to attend with you just the other day with 
Secretary Leavitt, who, as those listening and watching tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, very well know, he is the Secretary of the Health and Human 
Service Department here in Washington, D.C. He would be in charge of 
negotiating these price controls.
  Now, what is interesting is you are talking about giving more power 
to someone in government. They normally like that. They normally seek 
that out. As we all well know, it is human nature. And his answer is 
pretty simple: I know we will not be able to get any benefit out of 
this and I know that it will have a harmful effect on the program and 
access to consumers' choices and access to the medical pharmacology 
that they need.
  So he said he does not want this. It is not necessary. And he concurs 
with the

[[Page H321]]

CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, analysis of this; and the fact is 
that CBO says the government could not negotiate a lower price than 
what the free market is already doing.
  So the facts are out there. And I am led to believe with the facts 
you just discussed, Dr. Price, that this is pretty much a sham. It is a 
political issue used by a select few here in Washington, D.C., for 
political purposes.
  Look, I know, I know, you know, politics in Washington, oh, what a 
shock. But the emptiness of this rhetoric from the majority side is 
quite glaring, and in fact I am led to believe that it is really a red 
herring. Let's make this the big evil issue. When in fact going back to 
the Clinton administration they had the very same language on how to 
get the best price from government purchasing pharmaceuticals. And so 
they are going to a different direction in order to win a political 
issue and they are going back on what they advocated just a few years 
ago in the Clinton administration and even what they supported in 
committee here in this House just less than 4 years ago.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, politics is 
replete in the discussions that we have here in this building. There is 
no doubt about it. And as I mentioned before, it would be humorous if 
it weren't so serious. This is a remarkably serious issue.
  And when you hear the other side of the aisle talk about how they 
determined that this would be in their first blitz of legislation, 
again, that it is not open to discussion that could result in any 
change at all, no amendments being offered, hasn't gone through the 
committee process, no input from anybody on the minority side, and no 
input from any one of the freshmen legislators, when questions are 
asked regarding how did you decide what you would include in this first 
blitz, the other side of the aisle is proud to say these are issues 
that 80 percent plus of the American people support.
  That is where, Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important to remember 
what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, and that is that everyone is 
entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. And it is our 
responsibility as leaders in this Nation to remember that we enact 
policies that have consequences, and the consequences of not enacting 
appropriate policy when it comes to health care is not just that 
somebody loses a little more money or has to pay a few more taxes or is 
inconvenienced to a certain degree. The consequences of legislation 
that relates to health care, when it is the wrong policy, results in 
decreasing quality of health care and harming individuals and even, Mr. 
Speaker, resulting in shortening the lives of individuals in this 
Nation. The consequences of this kind of decision are huge, are 
significant.
  And when the majority party says, well, we are just doing it because 
80 percent of the American people think it is the right thing to do, 
leadership, Mr. Speaker, means that you investigate the situation and 
you lead. You lead with information that is factual information.
  And it distresses me greatly that we find ourselves in this first 
week of this new 110th Congress with a new majority who is all excited 
about the prospects of leading and, in fact, what they are doing is 
putting forward an issue that will result in a lower quality of health 
care for American citizens and will result in harming, truly harming, 
many of our constituents.
  I am pleased to be joined now by my good friend and physician 
colleague in Congress, a good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 
Congressman Phil Gingrey, and I know Congressman Gingrey would like to 
make a few comments about the part D proposal that has come to the 
floor.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much Dr. Price's giving 
me an opportunity to be here once again, once again, with a great team, 
the Truth Squad, and taking up where they left off in the 109th, Mr. 
McHenry and Ms. Foxx and others, led by Dr. Price.
  And, of course, there are a couple of pretty darned important issues 
on the floor in this 100-hour rush to pass with no amendments, as you 
pointed out, Dr. Price, no opportunity to even present amendments to 
get rejected. And we are talking, of course, about the two bills, one 
tomorrow, and that is the stem cell issue, and then, on Friday, 
Medicare part D. I would be glad, happy, thankful for the opportunity 
to talk a little bit about part D and maybe later in the hour touch on 
just for a few minutes the issue of the stem cell bill that is coming 
up.
  Medicare part D is working. You have heard that old expression ``If 
it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.'' I think that applies to this 
issue, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, more than any I have seen in a long, 
long time.
  Because I know the majority party particularly loves to look at 
polls, loves to look at numbers, and I don't blame them. I understand 
that, too. But this is an 80 percent issue of satisfaction, is it not? 
And we are talking in 1 year, our seniors, 38 million of them, 80 
percent of them are very, very happy with Medicare part D. They have 
finally gotten it.
  We delivered it, we the Republican majority at the time in November 
of 2003, and we gave them something that they have literally been 
waiting for not the entire 40 years of Medicare, but I would say 
certainly for the last 25 years, and that the previous and now new 
majority could not deliver on.
  So I could understand their wanting to get on the bandwagon at this 
point and take credit for something. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we 
are looking at a situation where they are about to gum up something 
that is working fine, and we need to let it continue to work. And I say 
that not just because it is an opinion that I hold as a physician or 
based on what people in my district, the 11th of Georgia, are telling 
me, but I base it on the fact that originally we predicted that the 
premium for Medicare part D would be about $37 a month. At that time, 
the Democratic minority both in the House and the Senate introduced 
amendments and/or legislation saying, let's fix the premium, the 
monthly premium, at $35 a month. Let's fix it. Well, if they had 
prevailed in doing that, Mr. Speaker, then today they would not be 
enjoying an average monthly premium of $24 a month. So let the market 
continue to work.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I know that 
you are very familiar with medical issues, being a physician in your 
former life, and I appreciate your comments as it relates to part D.
  And I just want to spend just a few more moments on the prescription 
drug plan and then move on to another issue and would be happy to yield 
to my good friend again from North Carolina, Congressman McHenry, for 
some closing remarks about part D that is going to come to the floor 
later this week.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you so much again, Congressman Price. Again, it is 
an honor and a privilege to be on the floor with two physicians who 
have this hands-on knowledge of how a very complicated government 
program works in terms of people. And I think that is what we need to 
be concerned about as policymakers, is the impact that we have on 
citizens and the choices and options they are able to have, the cost 
out of their pocket both through tax dollars and through their premium 
payments every month through the Medicare part D premium.
  What we have to do in this House as a minority party now is to make 
sure that what the Democrat majority does is honest and has integrity, 
and I believe that this issue is a red herring used for political 
purposes. It is a sham. It will have little to no effect, and any 
effect that it does have will be negative for seniors, and it will be 
negative for our taxpayer dollars, and it will have a long-term 
negative effect on our pharmaceutical industry in this Nation where we 
have developed wonderful cures for such complex ailments that have 
perplexed generations of Americans and citizens in this world.
  So what we have to do is make sure that we focus on the price to 
consumers, the price to taxpayers, and the choice and options that 
consumers are able to have in the free market. So let us not get off on 
tangents here. That is what this issue is all about, price and choice. 
So let us stand on the side that provides our constituents with the 
best options available, the most options available, at the lowest price 
possible.
  So, Congressman Price, I thank you for your leadership with the 
Official Truth Squad. It is a great, great day when you are able to 
take the House

[[Page H322]]

floor and I am able to watch you in action making the points that need 
to be articulated to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to serve in this House and be able to 
carry out those agenda items that are going to help Americans and also 
stop the bad things that will hurt Americans that some in this Chamber 
offer, some more frequently than others.
  Thank you, Congressman Price, for your leadership not just on the 
prescription drug benefit issue and medical issues but your overall 
leadership of holding this majority party, the Democrat majority party, 
accountable for their words, their rhetoric, and their actions. Thank 
you, Congressman Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you for your participation.
  Let me just close with some final comments about a Medicare 
prescription drug plan that is on the agenda this week to be dealt with 
by the majority party.
  In the program, the costs are down. The access is expansive to 
medications. All medications in the panoply or the array of plans that 
are available are available to patients. Seniors are happy. We are 
negotiating now. There are negotiations going on now between plans 
and pharmaceutical companies and plans and pharmacists that have 
decreased costs much below what was projected.

  The big question in the end, Mr. Speaker, is who is going to be 
making health care decisions? Is it going to be government bureaucrats 
and majority parties, or is it going to be patients and doctors? That 
is the real question. And I am hopeful that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will appreciate the gravity of this issue that they 
are bringing forward and the importance of making certain that there is 
input from all Members of Congress as it relates to this issue. And 
hopefully, hopefully, if we cannot get some sanity in this Chamber, we 
will get some sanity in the Senate and make sure that we don't do 
something that would truly harm the health of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue now and talk about another 
issue that is of incredible importance and incredible gravity to the 
American people and certainly to some very specific individuals, and 
that is the issue of stem cell research. It is an extremely complex 
issue. It is a scientific issue. It is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that 
demands the highest quality debate and input here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. And, once again, what we are seeing from the majority 
party is not that kind of involvement.
  Nobody, nobody on the minority side of the aisle has been involved 
specifically in bringing forward the legislation, with the exception of 
the few individuals who are supportive of what the majority party is 
doing. Nobody who has a contrary view has been involved in the process. 
There have been no committee hearings this session on this bill. The 
Republicans by and large have been shut out and certainly all of the 
freshmen have been shut out of this issue. An issue that truly, Mr. 
Speaker, you talk about a life-and-death issue. This is a life-and-
death issue.
  I am so pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues this evening to 
talk specifically about the issue of embryonic stem cell research and 
stem cell research in general. I would remind folks again of kind of 
the hallmark quote of the Official Truth Squad, and that is that 
everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. And 
if you look at the scientific facts on this issue, Mr. Speaker, you 
will arrive at the right conclusion.
  So I am pleased to ask to join us this evening my good colleague from 
North Carolina, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, who has been passionate in 
her desire to make certain that we as a Nation have an appropriate and 
correct policy when it relates to embryonic stem cell research.
  So I yield to my good friend from North Carolina, Congresswoman 
Virginia Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Price, for yielding. And, again, 
thank you for keeping our Truth Squad together and making sure that we 
are here on a regular basis presenting the facts to people. That is 
what I think we have to do on this very, very important issue of stem 
cell research.
  The people who are pushing for embryonic stem cell research and the 
media, I think, have very much misled the American public on this. They 
have not done a good job of educating people on this issue.
  I had a chance last year to speak on this issue for quite a long time 
on the floor and got a lot of positive feedback from people saying this 
is the first time I ever had anybody really explain the difference in 
embryonic stem cell research and stem cell research. So I want to talk 
a little bit about that tonight, because I think that is one of the 
critical issues, and then I want to talk about the facts again. It 
really is important that we understand what the facts are as they 
relate to the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic 
stem cell research, and I am going to probably repeat this several 
times because I think it is so important.
  I have something that is not as good as the charts, but stem cell 
research treatments, adult stem cell research treatments, if you can 
see this, it says: ``Adult, 72; embryonic, 0.'' That is the score. 
There have been 72 efficacious treatments that have come out of the 
research on adult stem cells, zero out of embryonic stem cells. In 
fact, all the research that has been done using embryonic stem cells 
have produced tumors and rejection, and no embryonic stem cell research 
has been allowed to be done on humans because of the very bad results 
that have come out of the research using embryonic stem cells.
  Now, the other thing that people have been misled on is whether there 
is any embryonic stem cell research going on. There is embryonic stem 
cell research going on, but many people, including myself, object to 
the use of Federal funding when it involves the destruction of human 
life.
  In 2006, NIH spent $38 million on embryonic stem cell research. You 
will never hear that coming out of the voices of the people who are 
pushing for embryonic stem cell research. They want the American people 
to believe that nothing is being done and that people who have 
debilitating diseases are being denied the opportunity for quick cures.

                              {time}  1900

  Nothing could be further from the truth. Approximately $200 million 
is being spent on human nonembryonic stem cell research: adult stem 
cells, cord blood, et cetera.
  I am proud to be able to say that Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, 
Dr. Tony Atala and his team of researchers have been able to show 
strong results in their work with amniotic fluid stem cells. That has 
come out this week and I have talked about it on the floor and we are 
going to continue to talk about it. I spoke to Dr. Atala just before I 
came over here tonight, and he wanted me to remind people of the real 
problems with embryonic stem cells and the fact that every time they 
have been used they create tumors, and they are rejected by the animals 
into which they are injected.
  That does not happen when you are using a person's own cells or when 
you are using amniotic stem cells. That just is not happening with 
people.
  So we need to make sure that people understand the difference because 
it is so easy for folks to talk about stem cell research, and they make 
folks like me look like we are mean and hateful people because we don't 
want to do this research that kills human life because they are saying 
that it is worth it to improve the lives of people with diseases.
  But pro-life people support stem cell research. There is only one 
exception, we don't want that research to kill other human life. We 
don't think that is appropriate. Never in the history of this country 
have we allowed research to do that. We very strongly control research 
to make sure that human beings are not damaged by the research that is 
done.
  In a former life I was a social scientist, and so I understand about 
the ethical way to do research. We have never done that in any other 
area, and yet it seems so easy for people to talk about doing embryonic 
stem cell research and destroying the embryos.
  The national media and others have really ignored the scientific 
realities, and they fail to report that embryonic stem cell research is 
the less promising course of action that, in fact, ends life.

[[Page H323]]

This negligence allows people who are suffering from diseases to 
develop false hope about possible breakthroughs by embryonic stem cell 
research. Again, just the opposite is true. Nothing positive has come 
out of embryonic stem cell research. Nothing. Zero.
  But out of adult stem cell research, cord blood research, amniotic 
fluid research, we have, again, 72 good treatments that have come, and 
we will be expecting more of those. Every day we have breakthroughs in 
that area, and we will continue to have breakthroughs. But if we get 
distracted by taking money away from this very promising research and 
put it into this unethical research that destroys human life and holds 
very little promise, then that is where the real crime is, I think, 
that we are trying to take the money away from what is producing good 
results and put it into something that is not producing good results.
  As I said before, no embryonic research has been done in humans 
because it is too dangerous. When it has been done in laboratory 
animals, there is no control over what happens. The stem cells develop 
in ways that can't be controlled. They create tumors. They are 
rejected, and it is all negative; and yet with the other, it is all 
positive.
  I think when we have the vote on this issue this week, people have to 
keep this in mind. I hope that the citizens who in the past have not 
understood the difference in these issues, they have not understood the 
ethical issues or the scientific issues, will say to your Member of 
Congress, I now understand this better, and I want you to take the 
ethical route, the efficacious route, not the route that will create 
death to the embryos and not positive kinds of results.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who is the 
official leader of our Truth Squad and helps us inform the American 
people at every one of these events.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank Congresswoman Foxx for participating 
and for bringing up the incredible importance of the ethical issues 
that are real. Regardless of where you come down on this issue, there 
is no doubt, it cannot be denied there are significant ethical 
challenges and questions surrounding this entire debate. If we ignore 
those as a Nation in our debate and discussion about it, it will result 
in a disservice to the entire Nation.
  I am pleased to call again on my physician colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), an obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced 
for almost 30 years and has incredible knowledge and passion and 
perspective on this most important issue of stem cell research.
  Mr. GINGREY. If we start talking about the number of years we have 
been in practice, the folks back home and in the Chamber will figure 
out how old we are, so we better stay away from that. Suffice it to 
say, we have both been at it for a long time, you in the field of 
orthopedics and me as an OB-GYN. Again, I appreciate what you are doing 
with respect to the Truth Squad.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) made some great 
points. First, anybody who suggests that this President is not for stem 
cell research just absolutely is ignoring the facts. The fact is, 
before 2001, when the President said we could start to use Federal 
dollars, your dollars, my dollars, our constituents' dollars, to fund 
stem cell research, indeed embryonic stem cell research on those 
existing lines that were indeed obtained from embryos from IVF clinics, 
because that destruction of life had already occurred and these stem 
cell lines existed, since that time in 2001, Mr. Speaker, we have spent 
I think the figure is $163 million on stem cell research. 
Representative Foxx mentioned that. We want that to continue. We want 
to be able to continue to fund that through the NIH.
  But she also addresses the issue of truth in advertising. I know the 
majority party is thinking this is an issue that polls 80 percent. 
Sure, if you show a public service announcement with Michael J. Fox, 
unfortunately, with wild movements all over the screen or you show 
Christopher Reeve and he is on a respirator and is a quadriplegic, and 
you say to them: Would you, Mr. and Mrs. America, would you be in favor 
of embryonic stem cell research that could cure these diseases, you are 
going to get an answer 80 percent of the time, a resounding ``yes.''
  But on the other hand, if you held up two precious twin toddlers, as 
I have seen, who are part of the snowflake baby population that were 
adopted embryos, and said: Would you be in favor of destroying these 
embryos so these lives never existed in the hopes that we could help 
Michael J. Fox or Christopher Reeve or your mama or my grand mama, the 
answer would be a resounding ``no.'' That is where we get into this 
issue.
  I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that 
is why we want an opportunity, which we are not getting, to go to the 
Rules Committee with amendments. Maybe they would get rejected. Maybe 
we would have an opportunity to bring them up on the floor, and talk 
about alternative ways of getting these stem cells, adult stem cells or 
embryonic stem cells from this amniotic fluid study that just came 
forward, or to get embryonic stem cells by biopsying an embryo 
without destroying it or even harming it, or taking one of these frozen 
embryos, thawing it out and you can tell microscopically that it has no 
chance of developing into a life, and taking those embryonic stem 
cells. That is all we are asking, Mr. Speaker.

  I am very appreciative in the limited time that Dr. Price has left 
for allowing me to say a few words, and I want to turn the time back 
over to him for his concluding remarks.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for joining us this 
evening and truly the recognition that this is a life-and-death issue.
  As I mentioned, regardless where anybody is, Mr. Speaker, on this 
issue, whether or not you believe that an embryo is indeed life or not, 
nobody can deny that there are ethical questions and an ethical dilemma 
that surrounds all of this.
  As a physician, I was trained in what is called the scientific model 
which means you try to collect as much information as possible and 
determine from that information what course of action you ought to 
take, and then step back and evaluate what has occurred in treating a 
patient or in whatever course of action you might have taken, and then 
make decisions based upon that information.
  The information we have available to us now, the information, 
specific information, the facts, not opinions but facts, the facts of 
the situation right now are that, in the area of stem cell research, 
which all of us support, all of us support stem cell research, in the 
area of stem cell research, the work that is being done for patients 
right now is overwhelming in its benefit now from adult and cord stem 
cell research and stem cell treatments in the area of adult and cord 
stem cell as opposed to embryonic stem cell.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, there has been no opportunity to amend or 
bring light in this Congress to that issue.
  I know that this won't show up very well, but this is a sheet that 
has 77 different diseases on it for which there are currently either 
clinical treatments or clinical trials for patients. Seventy-seven 
different diseases.
  I think it is important for you, Mr. Speaker, and anybody listening, 
to appreciate that there are individuals who are being cured of 
diseases right now from the use of adult and cord stem cells, stem 
cells that are not derived from situations where there is, indeed, this 
ethical question or challenge.
  In fact, there are at least nine patients who have been cured of 
their sickle cell disease. That is patients who no longer have sickle 
cell disease utilizing cord stem cells.
  Mr. Speaker, that is incredible. It is a wonderful thing that has 
occurred. It is something that all of us ought to embrace, and that is 
factual. That is factual.
  If you look, however, Mr. Speaker, at the number of diseases for 
which there are clinical trials or clinical treatments in the area of 
embryonic stem cells, and those are the ones where there is that 
ethical dilemma or challenge, this is the answer to that: None. None. 
Zero.
  So you have 77 different diseases that are being either treated in 
the clinical setting with actual patients, real patients, or there are 
trials that are going on or there is active study going; 77 with adult 
and cord stem cells. And then embryonic stem cells, none. Zero, Mr. 
Speaker.

[[Page H324]]

  Now, it is wholly possible that something at some point in the future 
may result in the ability to use embryonic stem cells for the treatment 
of disease, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues 
here and to anybody who truly is interested in the factual nature of 
this scientific question, a very complex question, and that is that the 
scientists are way ahead of the politicians on this.

                              {time}  1915

  Congresswoman Foxx mentioned one of the wonderful breakthroughs that 
was just announced from Wake Forest earlier this week, and that is the 
use of amniotic fluid to find and recover, capture, if you will, 
embryonic stem cells that have none of the ethical dilemma of whether 
or not life is being destroyed in order to advance science. None. None 
of that ethical dilemma.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to recognize that science ought to be listened to in this, and we ought 
to pay attention to facts. There is no reason to move forward with a 
bill that will not necessarily result in significant cures for diseases 
and that will only, only, result in the demagoguing of an issue and 
hold out a false hope for individuals for whom they believe that if we 
just pass this bill that their disease will be cured tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, that simply is not the case. The biggest bang for the 
buck in terms of utilizing taxpayer money, Federal taxpayer money, 
which is hard-earned taxpayer money, for appropriate research is in the 
area of adult and cord stem cells and possibly embryonic stem cells 
that are recovered in a way that has none of the ethical dilemma or 
challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, I was honored to be with you this evening.

                          ____________________