congress although there may be some subcommittee which will be taking place together and i want to note this accomplished a great deal committee has worked together very well and we have compiled a remarkable legislative record of which each of us the members of staff democrats and republicans can be proud of the nation's consumer protection that overholt landmark energy legislation has been signed into law our nine one one emergency services have been enhanced and modernized key programs to protect the amongst other issues the committee has developed substantial records on the problems of global climate change and the safety of our food and drug supply this leaves us in a position where we can move more on legislation implementing the goals of the committee on these matters and it is to be noted the work of this congress will serve as a solid foundation for legislation that we hope and in next congress i want to commend all of the members of the committee for their labors and i want to commend very specially each of the committee chairman and each of the ranking members for their leadership and i want to make it clear that i look forward to continuing to work with each of them in the important assigned to us by the american people and to do so in a fashion consistent with the best traditions of the house and of the command of this great committee for years to come the chair has one announcement that i think we need to all make although this may well be the last meeting of the full committee legislation was one hundred tenth congress members of the committee will meet again tomorrow morning at nine fifteen a m to pose for the official photograph of the committee for the hundred years that is a matter of rather special concern particularly to those members who will not be coming back to the congress or will not be members of this committee in the next congress the church is going to insert into the transcript the following statement on each isabelle's to be considered today and without objection all members may submit a statement into the transcript on opinion for this committee we have seen bills pulled from the calendar today simply because your leadership on the democrat side has made the decision that they don't want to subject you to some hard votes i don't consider them to be hard votes i consider that transparency of allowing our constituents to know what their health care costs are going to be to be one of those essential things but nevertheless what we're seeing is our committee is being bypassed and bills are going to be sent directly to the floor with no opportunity for members on either side of the aisle in the committee to express their concerns and work their will that to me is not the way this committee should be functioning now i know that some of you have concerns about transparency i submitted a proposed amendment last week on a bill which i withdrew because i felt like i needed to work on it further i have worked on it further i've shared the content of the new version with the staff known both sides and i think it removes most of the complaints well now let me tell you what this boils down to some of my friends on the democrat side have been all too willing to accuse the republicans in this committee of being in the pockets of big pharma and big insurance companies i'm aware that pharma has written a letter saying they don't like the idea of transparency i'm aware that the insurance industry has written our expressed opinions that they don't like this issue of transparency being raised and now we see the democrat leadership of this committee saying we agree with them we don't think our committee members are sophisticated enough to be able to make an intelligent decision about this issue now wherever you come down on that let me suggest to you that this is the real issue the american public deserves to know what their health care costs are going to be and they deserve to know it before they get a bill six weeks after the service as i have been rendered it is tragic that this committee has heard repeated testimony that the number one reason for bankruptcy personal bankruptcy in this country is a high medical bills that people cannot pay now we're going to have a lot of debate this week about the financial crisis caused by mortgages but if the number one reason people are going into bankruptcy is because they can't pay their medical bills maybe we ought to ask the question why is it that individuals who do not have insurance or being charged ten times maybe twelve times maybe fourteen times larger amounts of money for the very same services as the charges would be if it was paid for by the insurance company or by medicare or by medicaid that's why people are going back where up when they get a bill like the one i alluded to last week for nineteen thousand dollars just for the room for one night in a hospital no wonder they have to file bankruptcy if we not going to respond to those very personal needs the very things that are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country and we're willing to turn our blind eyes to it and say well we don't really care what the hospitals charge to an uninsured individuals we don't really care how exorbitant they are compared with what other prices for the same services are being paid and i think that is a tragic day i think it's a tragic day for this committee that we simply avoid that issue and just say we're going to pass it to the floor and let people decide on the issue of that as they see fit and i know there are very good underlying bills here and i had no desire to kill any of them in fact i agreed last week that i would not submit the transparency amendment on the hypertension bill and then the threat was well if you submit the amendment only any other bail including those issues authorize this bill then we will simply the rest of them from the calendar and that has what has happened and most specifically mr deal you obviously are hot under the collar because you're not going to be i guess offering your transparency golden rule amendment but i want to say something about the charge that's been fired here and that is that we don't want these things to be debated i'm the one that asked that the arthritis bill not be brought up today and let me explain to you why now maybe there's something else with another bill but i want you to know that this is a bill that enjoys about two hundred fifty co sponsors this is the third congress that we've been working on this we have a two hundred and thirty nine pediatric rheumatologist in our entire nation today now if children are not diagnosed they end up looking like pretzels by the time they are adults because they haven't been diagnosed and then treated now i worked very hard with the ranking member of the full committee mr barton they offered a pilot program instead of the full loan reimbursement i said that's fine nine thirty last night there were still telephone calls and the bill was  practically rendered worthless it was chopped up into pieces of liver and and the offer was is that we would incur in our country and move from two hundred thirty nine to two hundred forty three rheumatologist so you know what i don't think that's be fitting of the american people i'm not afraid to debate whatever the heck you want to offer i mean we debate here all the time so i want you to know why we're not taking it up there that this is not this is not what arthritis prevention crow control and and a cure actually represent and i'm sorry to report that on the one that's the sorriest i've been working my butt off on this with mr pickering and at least two hundred forty eight other members of congress and there are many bills that go through this committee that have five seven eleven and fourteen co sponsors so that that's not the reason mr deal i mean you want what you want and i know it has to do with health savings accounts and i don't agree with i don't like health savings accounts but hey that's our prerogative of what we pick and choose around here but i don't want you to say that this bill was yanked because of what you want to offer i said to the chairman of the full committee this should not be brought up because this bill should not be chopped up  way it would be it doesn't represent progress for the country and i'm willing to meet people halfway but i'm not willing to pick up crumbs from the floor and then say pretend to constituents that we made progress that's not thank the general idea for doing so and i am sympathetic with what the ladies position is on the author of us bill i think she understood that her bill was actually being used as a leverage on this issue of transparency and i don't attribute that to her but that's the sad state of affairs that was being relayed to us is that it was going to be used as leverage i did not think that was appropriate to do so and so reclaiming my time you were doing something to help save i mean i don't know what you're suggesting would be an ally to you sure well i don't think the gentle lady knew that the threat was that your bill would be pulled along with a pulmonary bill along with a breast cancer bill if i had dared to reclaiming my time i don't know if that's fair or not i you know what i just first of all as a woman in the congress when someone says that i don't understand i have to tell you that my backside goes up because that's usually the way people start out you know let me see how i can explain this to you so that you can understand so that i can help save you and i don't think that's the case i think the gentleman is trying to be sincere but i  don't accept that description of that so i think it's sad that the bill's not coming up on its own merits and that we're not doing something in your state of georgia you have one rheumatoid pediatrician one beginning that the bills that we were going to take up today which is essentially the last day would have to be consent bills to the extent that there is not consent and there is not on mr deals price transparency  t those bills are not going to be considered i do think it's tragic in it at one level because i do know that the arthritis bill is a very important bill and i do want to comment on what ms  said the fact of the matter is that we don't have enough specialists in this area i know that in my state of new jersey many of the children who suffer from these arthritic afflictions have actually come with their parents to town meetings and open houses that i had over the summer and in my area they're all forced to go to one hospital hackensack which is about an hour and a half away from where you know from my district so when this issue says it there's a great need for a lot more of these physicians and specialists she's absolutely right and the suggestion that somehow we're going to add a few whether it's a handful four five six is simply not the answer and so obviously we do not have a consensus on the substance of that bill and i agree with her that there's no point moving the bill if that's what it's going to lead to a handful of more of these positions i also want to point out that on the trot price transparency issue the gentleman from georgia tried to make this amendment last week i pointed out that this is an issue that we need to have some hearings on how to address these problems where hospitals charge a lot more to the uninsured for example has many manifestations we actually discussed this last thursday when we had a health reform hearing in this room of the health subcommittee and my governor corps i'm pointed out that in his state he just recently signed a bill that actually caps the amount that hospitals can charge the uninsured by comparison to what they charge others so there are many ways of going at this issue and i told the gentleman from georgia at the markup last week and at the subcommittee hearing on health reform that i wanted to have hearings on this issue that we will and that we will look at the many facets it's a multifaceted issue so we don't have agreement on how to address this issue and that's the reality when we don't have agreement it can't be on a consent calendar we have i think sixteen bills bipartisan democrat republican that we're going to take to the floor the same afternoon that have come through this committee through this consent process so i defy anybody to say that we are not working to try to bring these fuel bills out of committee to the floor passed the senate to the president that's the goal but they have to be consent and when there is no consent we can't move on a consent calendar it's that simple and it does disturb me today that there was a suggestion that somehow we're supposed to you know just bring up any bill today and move any amendment and argue all day long and take hard votes i mean that's not what we're about here the it was not what we agreed to and it's useless because if we're going to if we're going to fight over the bills they're never going to go to the floor they're never going to get past the senate they're never going to get to the white house and be signed into law so i suggest that i know that these a couple of bills health public health bills are not going to be brought up today may still be an first i want to just say there is some good news today the bills that are being marked have been worked out on a bipartisan basis and it is to your credit that you continue to wish to work with the minority and to u se the regular order i am saddened that three of the bills that we'd originally scheduled for markup are not going to be marked up but again i have to take as the ranking member part of the blame for that because our agreement was that if you and i both didn't agree that they should be marked that they were ready they wouldn't be and to your credit you have kept your word and the three bills that we were having problems with for whatever reason have been removed so to the extent that there is a disagreement i am part of the disagreement and take full responsibility for that i do want to elaborate something a little bit on what that disagreement is we do not have a basic disagreement with mrs issues bill she has worked very hard and to her credit her staff in the majority majority staff have worked with the minority staff the primary  objections that we had which were imposed munt on the some of the reforms in the form act have been alleviated i agree with ms issue that if the end result of  massive effort is that we get four more doctors in the next couple of years that's that's not sufficient so i want to i want to agree with that but i also think that we need to  to admit in public that mr deal's effort on transparency is not some wild and radical idea conceptually it's pretty straightforward if you go to see a health care professional whether it's a physician or whether it's a hospital or a clinic you should have some right to know the price that your pain is a price that other people are also payin know that for some reason controversal when i was chairman there are always three ways to solve problems that are controversial you can put them up for a vote and if you disagree with it you can line your troops up and beat it did that on occasion you can put it up for a vote and let it have be a free vote and see what the will of the committee is that sometimes is dangerous because as chairman you don't know what the will of the committee is and you don't want to take that chance so sometimes you don't allow those votes to come to to happen that's a paragon of of the chairmanship and of the majority the third thing to do is you might decide that the idea is not bad and take ownership and take credit for it you know that does happen on occasion the somebody that generally you don't agree with has an idea that you think's a good idea and you want to take credit for it but what we decided in this case on the deal amendment is for some reason the idea of transparency some of the groups that have business before the committee are not ready to have that debated and instead of having a debate on good bills the decision has been made to try to remove or retract those bills for the time being i do hope in the next congress that we can have that debate on transparency and move forward the last thing i want to say mr chairman because ms eshoo alluded to this she said that her bill has two hundred forty or two hundred fifty co sponsors and that's a true statement but there are many many bills get lots of co sponsors because that in this is not the case and this is a shoes bill so i'm not making this allegation that it's just kind of a your constituency comes in to see you and they have an  bill for the congress that they want to move and you put your name on it knowing or thinking that that bill's probably not going to come up that's not the case with ms issues because she has worked very hard with mr pickering for several years on the bill but it is not always the prudent thing to do to move bills simply because they have large numbers of co sponsors i have seen on numerous occasions when such bills that did include controversial issues did come to the vote many co indeed up voting against those bills so so we should use judgment and it is the judgment of the chairman that rules because a majority rules so i agree with your judgment for today's markup the bills that are being moved forward  i'd like to talk a little bit about the h r thirty four o two the calling card consumer protection act as chairman as former chairman of the commerce consumer commerce trade and consumer protection subcommittee this i believe is a very good bill i support efforts to combat unfair and deceptive practices that harm some of the most vulnerable consumers however i also believe it is pertinent that we put the right in for a regime in place while i share the view that there should be an explicit federal regime governing prepaid calling cards and services i am concerned mr chairman that the current bill would create duplicate and inconsistent enforcement at the federal and state level the c already has the ability to police prepaid calling cards calling card providers and calling card distributors do we really need to bring the f t c federal trade commission into the mix furthermore if this is such a pressing issue why hasn't the telecom subcommittee held hearings on this and hauled the f c c in to investigate this issue the subcommittee held at least six hearings on d t v transition which is important and necessary but not on the pressing issue of calling card fraud i must reiterate that we need to make sure that states cannot adopt inconsistent laws or regulations governing prepaid calling cards and services one unified set of rules will put all players on notice regarding their responsibility towards consumers bad actors would not be able to hide behind the confusion created by disparate set of rules absurdly appreciate the efforts of the committee to address and rectify this issue and i thank you for your efforts on this but again i think we should have had a hearing on this particular bill we had plenty of time it's a very important bill and in conclusion mr chairman i like to mention that the travel promotion act which again is a product of bipartisan work that i support this and that's been improved by the compromise manager's amendment and i think it's important we have taken steps to ensure that there is more adequate oversight of the corporation's board members and there are tighter controls on the treasury's initial ten million dollar loan to this corporation it is imperative that we address a noticeable decline in the u s share of world member barton for holding this market i want to speak briefly about h r thirty four o two the calling card consumer protection act i believe i continue to believe that this is a necessary important step to take in consumer protection in an area that's been ripe with fraud and abuse and i commend the bill's co sponsors for moving forward with this issue and i continue to support the purpose of the bill however i still have a concern that we have not fully addressed some of the issues that were brought to light with the subcommittee hearing and the markup specifically i remain concerned about the federal prison preemption on disclosures language and while i believe that we've made some progress since the subcommittee markup and i definitely appreciate that afrin i still believe that this bill falls short in the area of preemption the purpose of federal preemption interstate commerce is to provide certainty and consistency in the market when the market is unquestionably interstate or in this case even international in nature the bill before us in the manager's amendment sets a federal standard and requires that all state regulations requirements for disclosure to the federal standard the bill ensures of the states the bill ensures the states an important role through a g enforcement that will provide accountability at the state level however in allowing numerous other state authorities to enforce the regulations have created a situation that invites increased litigation this litigation the subsequent expense of resources to address it undermines the regulatory consistency and consumer benefit that preemption language is intended to create instead of having companies that spend resources fighting lawsuits at so many different levels we should be using the preemption standard to create a consistent and enforceable standard for them to comply with and allow them to use their resources to enhance products and services for consumers also the potential for review of the disclosure standard at so many different levels will likely lead to many different interpretations of those requirements these interpretations are enforceable and could affect the requirements within the within that jurisdiction our goal with preemption is to create a clear and consistent standard that consumers can rely on so that no matter where they are purchasing a calling card they can be certain about what information is required to know that they are getting a legit legitimate project product we should not do anything with this bill that would that could increase confusion among consumers about the safety and reliability of the product that they are per share purchasing no matter where they are and finally i'm concerned about the precedent that we are setting for preemption language since preemption is likely to continue to come up as we look at other legislation in the new congress and while the bill does its best to establish identical regulations at the state and federal level that fall short of what is needed by creating the tensional for inconsistent enforcement in these very same state and federal venues this inconsistency undermines the good intentions behind the bill and progress made with the identical regulations again let me say i support the efforts and the goals of the calling card consumer protection act that our chairman and ranking member will continue to protection to improve h r thirty two thirty two the travel promotion act of two thousand and seven and while this amendment makes a number of changes to the bill as it was passed out of the subcommittee i would like to highlight four key issues first the manager's amendment improves the corporation for travel promotion accountability to the federal government by requiring that the secretary of commerce in consultation with the secretary of homeland security and secretary of state approve the corporation annual statement of objectives second at the suggestion of my good friends mr stupak of michigan and mr whitfield of kentucky the amendment requires the corporation to identify opportunities and strategies to promote tourism to rural and urban areas areas equally as well as report on them to the secretary of commerce and the congress there are the amendment makes the initial ten million dollars loan from the treasury to establish the corporation subject to the availability of appropriations and lastly the manager's amendment makes clear that the corporation must first contribute private sector funds before receiving transfers from the travel promotion fund i want to thank my colleagues for their cooperation and  well as chairman and ranking member barton for working with me to include language in the manager's amendment to promote travel in rural america work on this bill encourage all my colleagues develop support of the manager's amendment and a travel promotion thank you mr chairman the manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute which i am pleased to offer in lieu of chairman bobby rush today is the product of bipartisan negotiation between the staffs of the trade and consumer protection subcommittee and the telecommunications and the internet subcommittee as well as the staff of the author of the bill mr angle like all bipartisan pieces of legislation the amendment reflects considerable compromise by all parties at ease in consultation with stakeholders well i have some concerns about the state in forstmann and preemption language in the draft i would encourage members of the committee to adopt it in order to move forward with this important consumer protection initiative so we can continue to improve the bill and resolve any lingering concerns either before we get to the floor in conference with the senate the manager's amendment makes numerous perfecting changes to the underlying bill h r thirty four to the calling card consumer protection act but in the interest of brevity i will only highlight the most important provisions that differ from the original test text first the manager's amendment harmonizes the bill's definitions with the existing f c c definitions under the code of federal regulations and further incorporates voice over internet protocol technology into the legislative mix this change this change ensures regulatory parity and builds in quote ever greening unquote mechanism such a such that the bill's disclosure mandates will of the evolve over time to capture new technologies ev the as the f c c adapts to a changing telecommunications landscape soul of the important mandates of mr engels bill second the amendment collapses section four and five of the original bill into one section and requires calling card services and providers to accurately and uniformly disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner all of the fees charges and terms applicable to the calling card third this amendment provides a narrow exception to the general exemption for common carriers under the law under current section five eight two of the federal trade commission act the f t c is explicitly can precluded from enforcing provisions prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices against common carriers in this case against telecommunications carriers the manager's amendment grants explicit authority to the federal trade commission to circumvent this exemption while concomitantly preserving all of the current regulatory authority of the federal communications commission as such this amendment recognizes the f t c is a preeminent agency for consumer protection on the one hand while on the other it preserves the role and expertise in regulating the telecommunications industry fourth the amendment has a very narrow preemption provision that promotes uniformity in the terms disclosed to consumers on calling cards at our subcommittee committee hearing last week we are testimony that consumers are confused by the dizzying number of names and terms used by calling card companies some companies use the term administrative charge while others use connection charge while others use maintenance charge are optional fees that companies charge consumers often for no other reason but to please more money out of the hapless consumer as such by requiring uniformity we ensure that consumers confront confront easily understood in standard terms to be displayed on small plastic cards that must fit into a while fit the manager's amendment expands and force one authority to include state utility commissioners and other states in forstmann agencies currently the underlying bill allows only from force and by state attorneys general and six this amendment recasts the treatment of retailers under the bill under the amendment retailers will be like all sellers in the marketplace under f t c law and subject to the inherent foresman authority of the commission and the authority granted states under this bill the f t c and states can take  e action against any party including sellers to stop them from selling fraudulent calling cards with godless of whether or not they know the cards are fraudulent however a state in force or would further be able to seek damages if the retailer knowingly sold fraudulent cards and the same knowledge apply standard the same knowledge standard applies when the f t c seeks to impose civil penalties so in closing the chairman i believe this amendment makes a bill that was already very good even better and i commend mr angle chairman i just want to thank mr rush for their bipartisan approach to this legislation and i know in our opening statements and also it's a subcommittee hearing we did hear a lot of concerns about some of the issues relating to the calling card legislation particularly preemption and the dual regulatory authority and hope that we still might have an opportunity to address some of those five seven a bill to amend the public health service to authorize the director of the national institute of environmental health sciences make grants for the development and operation of research centers regarding environmental factors that may be related to the elegy of amendment to the nature of a substitute h r one one five seven offered by mrs myrick of north carolina strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following section one short title this act may be cited as the battled this disease all wonder about environmental causes and triggers while studies have been done and some progress has been made in the area of hormone replacement therapy for example there is much we don't know breast cancer remains the most common form of cancer  more to address but gentle connections between breast cancer and diet pollution chemicals household products and lifestyle choices its original form the bill required that make grants to conduct malta institutional  environmental factors related to breast cancer required the secretary to create a breast cancer and environmental research panel an earmark and i funding for that purpose given the evolution of the n h s structure since passage of an reformat and recognizing the importance of making the most of critical research dollars changes are made to the original text this amendment instead stably says an interagency breast cancer and environmental research coordinating committee since breast cancer and environmental research is conducted at other agencies aside and eight such as the centers for disease disease control and the department of defense it only makes sense to those agencies share their expertise and work toward the most promising research goals the coordinating committee ensures the advocacy and community participation in vision by the original text and is required to focus on collaborative research ensure on necessary duplications and develop a strategy to advise federal agencies on soliciting proposals to study breast cancer and environmental research the amendment authorizes up to forty million dollars per year for this purpose without specifically earmarking disease specific funding and keeping within  three format furthermore it recognizes the interrelatedness a basic disease research and encourages panel participants to assess the status and progress of environmental breast cancer research in the context of critical breakthroughs in other diseases the memmott supported by this is indeed common foundation and is a product of thorough bipolar and by cameral negotiation i'm pleased to offer this amendment and even more pleased as my colleague to support it since so many hypertension bail many of you will recall that this is a build it is named in honor of our colleague the late tom lantos i had the honor of presiding in two thousand and five over the first hearing on that subject of this bill which has now been modified and as you may recall representative lantos is granddaughter who suffers from this disease was a witness at that hearing as i say i commend ms caps for her work and to my knowledge there are no objections and all of the objections to that bill have been reconciled and in light of that i would ask unanimous consent request that h r sixty five sixty eight be favorably reported by this committee and sent to the or perhaps if we extend the session past this weekend that being the probable case i simply want to say on behalf of the minority that we appreciate your chairmanship of the committee we appreciate your professionalism we appreciate your your your personal affability and willingness when you have been allowed to leadership of your c work with us we know it's not an easy situation when so many issues taken from the committee to the floor without the normal process that you and i