BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARINGS
PERSPECTIVES ON RENEWING STATUTORY PAYGO - JULY 25, 2007
Witnesses:
- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States
- Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- Hon. Patrick J. Toomey, president, Club for Growth, former Congressman from the State of Pennsylvania
- Robert L. Bixby, executive director, the Concord Coalition
- Maya C. MacGuineas, president, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
At the start of the hearing, Smith is listed as "present".
As the hearing continues, however, and it comes his turn to ask any questions, he's gone:
Chairman Spratt. Thank you. We will now turn to Mr. Alexander of Louisiana. Okay. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Not here. Mr. Campbell of California.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA: WHAT WILL BE THE LONG TERM EFFECT ON THE FEDERAL BUDGET? - AUGUST 2, 2007
Witnesses:
- Donald E. Powell, Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Stanley J. Czerwinski, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
- Rev. Donald Boutte, Pastor, St. John Baptist Church
Smith is listed as "present" at the start.
After that, we hear nothing else from him.
USING TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS MOST EFFICIENTLY: PERSPECTIVES ON PERFORMANCE BUDGETING - SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Witnesses:
- Barry Anderson, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
- Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
- David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Paul L. Posner, director, Public Administration Program, George Mason University
Smith is listed as present, but asks no questions. However, he is the only Representative to submit a prewritten statement for the record (outside of the Chairman and Ranking Republican, who normally submit statements for the record on all hearings).
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska
Good morning and thank you, Chairman. I am so pleased we are holding this hearing today. We have an obligation to exercise accountability and fiscal responsibility in government spending. As this Committee plans for future federal budgets, the ideas and information expressed to us today are of utmost importance. While we address the many fiscal challenges we face, we must assess the value of the information available to us. This hearing will give us the opportunity to explore ``performance-based budgeting.'' The models and results of ``performance-based budgeting'' could serve as a valuable tool for setting our spending priorities. Too often in Congress, we debate, vote on, and pass--and in some cases regrettably so--legislation about which we have no measure of its efficacy. And Mr. Chairman, that just has to change. Financial discipline is one of my greatest concerns. By serving on this Committee, my goal is to add fiscal restraint to the budget process. Congress must promote policies which will make government programs better, more efficient, and more sustainable for the long- term. Commonsense tells us this can only be achieved with an accountability system in place. Adding accountability to the budget process will combat waste, fraud, and abuse while we work to control the growth in government and restrain spending. I appreciate the Committee for holding this hearing as an important step to meeting our goals. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your time.
Given Smith's close ties with the Club for Growth, do not be surprised if this was provided for him to submit.
THE TAX CODE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE - OCTOBER 18, 2007
Witnesses:
- Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute
- Leonard E. Burman, director, Tax Policy Center, senior fellow, the Urban Institute
Smith was listed as present at the beginning. However, yet again, he is the only Representative to submit a written statement. He also presubmits his questions instead of staying and asking them live. Given this is, yet again, a hearing about taxes the Club for Growth would be interested in, there is a chance these were given to him to submit. It also prevented him from having to put himself on the spot in a room full of people like the rest of the members of the committee.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska
Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for holding today's hearing on this issue of concern to Americans. Our goal in this committee today is to address access and affordability of health care while looking for solutions that promote both fiscal and individual responsibility. Throughout the nation people are concerned about having access to health care; in my home state of Nebraska 11.1 percent of people go without health insurance. Today this Congress is grappling with the issue of providing health insurance to needy children. We must not lose sight, however, of the need for public policy that will reduce the number of Americans who are uninsured while continuing to foster a system that provides consumers with choice and competition. Choice and competition in health care promotes efficiency and innovation that works to keep the costs of health care under control. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing.
I will only post the question that was submitted, not the response (since it was a written statement with no give and take).
Question for Ms. Turner From Mr. Smith of Nebraska
As we look at ways to use the tax code to reduce the number of uninsured, we have seen different proposals including either tax credits or tax deductions to individuals and families for health care. In a general sense, as we look at the differences between credits, deductions, or a combination of the two, which approach will 1) be more fiscally responsible; and 2) do more to reduce the number of uninsured?
THE GROWING BUDGETARY COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR - OCTOBER 24, 2007
Witnesses:
- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Prof. Linda J. Bilmes, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
- Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S., Defense Policy and Budget, Congressional Research Service
Once again, Smith was the only committee member (outside of the Chairman and Ranking member) to submit a written statement:
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska
Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for holding today's hearing on this issue of concern to almost every American. As Congress provides funds for troops in both the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill and the War Supplemental, it is important for us to set the politics aside. Congress should finance Iraq operations in a fiscally responsible manner without jeopardizing the needs of our troops. After visiting our troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and seeing real progress from strategies now in place, I am even more convinced the Global War on Terror can be won by supporting our troops and providing them the appropriate tools needed for success. By properly funding the Iraq mission today, the United States is helping Iraq to operate independently in the future; and an independent Iraq is a goal I know we all share. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing.
Smith then asked a few questions:
Chairman Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I apologize for arriving here late from a markup in another committee. When you talk about reset costs, what would you point to as something that might be neglected that we may need to address 5 years down the road or 10 years down the road rather than 2 years down the road?
Mr. Orszag. I am not exactly sure what you mean, sir.
Mr. Smith. With the reset costs, replacing equipment and various other items, long term, I mean, we are finding out now that some of the equipment is needing to be replaced that was not replaced 10 years ago that maybe should have been, so we are starting to see some increased costs now, and certainly the war on terror exacerbates the entire issue. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Orszag. Sure. Again, the most dramatic increases in costs over the past several years have been in the area of procurement, and part of that is related to the reset program. I would just note, though, that the reset program now is being so aggressively funded that our analysis suggests that it is more than offsetting what it is supposedly designed to do, which is to replace or repair equipment that is damaged in theater. In other words, it is leading to a net improvement in the quality and number of tanks and trucks and what have you relative to prewar----
Mr. Smith. So, I mean----
Mr. Orszag [continuing]. Because of the money that you are providing to it, okay?
Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I understand, I think, where you are going with this. Now, if a 1990--and my years are probably not accurate, but if a 1990 tank is needing to be replaced, what would you suggest replacing it with?
Mr. Orszag. Well, again, I think the question is not whether or not a 1990 tank needs to be replaced, but, rather, if a 1995 or a 1998 tank is damaged in theater, whether the purpose of the emergency funding that is provided for the reset program is to restore it to operational--you know, to its original state, or whether the funds should be used to purchase a 2007 or a 2008 high-technology tank. A significant component of what is happening is the latter. Again, that is up to you. The way that the program is being described is that it is designed just to offset the impact of the war on that 1998 tank, and that is not all that is happening.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.
How embarrassing! I don't think Smith had a clue what he was even talking about!
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: INVESTMENT NEEDS AND THE BUDGET - OCTOBER 25, 2007
Witnesses:
- Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office
- Janet F. Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and executive director, Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition
- Robert Puentes, fellow, metropolitan policy program, the Brookings Institution
Smith must have learned a new way to get words on the record regularly and not have to actually speak or think in the moment. He was one of 2 committee members to submit statements....again:
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is necessary and timely, and I am pleased we are holding it today. Safe and efficient transportation is tremendously important to the Nation's economy and to the Third District of Nebraska. The Federal surface transportation spending and revenue structure needs improvement. This is especially troubling to me since Nebraska is one of 25 donor states; putting more money in gas tax revenue into the Highway Trust Fund than we get back. As currently structured, funds are not targeted to most effectively address current and future challenges. Some of the these challenges in Nebraska relate to changing economic activity. For example, we still face significant transportation issues in the ethanol industry. As we see changes resulting from bioenergy development, transportation demands are changing and I question whether or not we are prepared to meet this challenge. I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide testimony for the Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your time.
Smith does not take the time to ask any questions during the hearing.
COUNTING THE CHANGE: ACCOUNTING FOR THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING CARBON EMISSIONS - NOVEMBER 1, 2007
Witnesses:
- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office
- David Doniger, Climate Center policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council
- Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- Anne E. Smith, Ph.D., vice president, CRA International
Smith decides to ask some questions during this hearing:
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Thank you very much for your time here. I know that it gets to be a challenge balancing science and politics and economics, and I appreciate your efforts. In trying to read up on so much of this, it has been interesting to see, and especially for my district, a large producer of livestock. And I have read about the impacts of high corn prices, not only high corn prices on the prices in livestock, but across the food spectrum, if you will, around the world. Here are pluses and minuses along the way. But especially the criticisms of the livestock industry and relating to carbon, would situations be considered, Mr. Orszag, if you don't mind; with a cap and trade system would the increased costs of food production be considered in this equation?
Mr. Orszag. There would be a variety of effects that would be spread out across different sectors, and the agricultural sector in particular would experience effects. I would also note, the agricultural sector would be one of the sectors most affected by a change in climate, so you also need to weigh the costs and benefits. And beyond that, I would just point out that your example might be a particularly salient one to return to the scoring issue. Handing a farmer a permit worth $100 that the farmer then turns around and sells for cash of $100 is really similar to handing that farmer $100 in cash. So you are right to identify your district and the agricultural sector in particular as a key sector in climate change. It is often noted that methane emissions are tied to the agricultural sector, and that is one of the greenhouse gases. And there would be important effects that are part of all of these models that strive as best they can to identify potential impacts on particular sectors.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Go ahead.
Mr. Doniger. May I add a couple points? First, that most cap and trade bills don't suggest they would actually control the emissions from most agricultural activities. But the change in the markets for energy means that there will be even larger opportunities for farm-based energy production. And this is apart from allocation subsidies or other subsidies. It just becomes more valuable to make wind energy, to recover methane natural gas from the wastes of livestock production, to grow, we would hope, cellulosic products, not the corn but the stocks, switchgrasses and so on, and turn those into ethanol. So you get an increase in farm-related energy markets just from the imposition of a cap. And there can also be, inside the distribution of the allowances there can be incentives to make some of those technologies come forward faster.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Dr. Smith.
Ms. Smith. I would like to also point out agriculture is one of the most energy intensive forms of manufacturing we have in the U.S. It is up there with other energy intense sectors. Cost of energy, when it rises, will raise the cost of farming. There is no question, though, that there may be some opportunities if the world is shifting towards biomass-based ethanol and use of land for forestry. There will be higher rises and changes in markets for land as well as change in markets for the crops off of the land, and I think it creates much uncertainty. There could be some upside for farmers, but it could also be a pretty disruptive time. At the same time, all the input prices are changing.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska. I think you might have been reading a transcript of some conversations I had with constituents. I appreciate your bringing that up, because agricultural producers, their greatest concern right now is the cost of energy. And with the direct impact that a cap and trade system would probably have on the energy costs, it would even exacerbate the problem that I see. When we look at the larger issue, again, are we confident that those who would be most impacted across the border, whether it is individuals, whether it is companies, whether it is those on fixed income paying their utility bills, that we can truly address all those? I know that is an ambiguous question; but I am fearful that there might be some unintended consequences along the way. If Mr. Greenstein would respond.
Mr. Greenstein. Sort of following up on an earlier comment I made. If the question is, could we identify every individual firm or elderly person on a fixed income, or a farmer, and fully offset the impact, no, we can't do it for each individual one. We have never done that for any big policy the governmenthas ever implemented. What we can do, though, is we can identify the priority needs. And if we auction off the lion's share of the permits, the resources are there. One can design in an efficient manner how to provide the assistance in those areas. Now, clearly you are not going to be able to fully offset the impact on everyone. If you took every consumer at all income levels and fully offset the cost on all of them, you wouldn't have money for basic research, or you might not have enough to go deeper in the coal mining communities. You make some choices. But the amount of revenue that can be raised, whether it be through auctioning permits or a carbon tax, as Mr. Ryan suggested, is sufficient that Congress could identify all the priority needs it needed to address, and it could on average fully address the needs in each of those areas, whether it be energy companies, people on fixed incomes, low income consumers, or the like.
Mr. Orszag. Mr. Smith, let me just add that it is not possible to compensate each individual household or each individual firm precisely because there is an overall economic cost to acting. That overall economic cost means it is not--I don't want to call it a fool's quest, but it is not possible to compensate everyone for the effects because there is some net cost. However, that cost has to be weighed against the benefit of purchasing insurance against climate change, basically. And so attempts to fully compensate everyone for the economic costs involved are not going to succeed almost by definition, but the net cost that sort of will be there needs to be weighed against the benefit of reducing the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change.
Ms. Smith. I would like to add, I completely agree. There was a net cost that was my starting point. The different forms of allocations can maybe help find a way to smooth out where the impacts are, but there is no way to make everybody better off even if you get a fully smooth and equitable sort of distribution. But I also want to point out, yes, we need to try to weigh the costs against the benefits, and we need to look at the costs that I just reported in my statement. Those are the net costs after accounting for all the recycling of all the benefits associated with the revenues from the allocations. And so the net average cost to the household for the kinds of hard cap bills that we are looking at, without accounting for the uncertainty of volatilities, is in the range of $1,000 to $1,500 a year. That is what needs to be compared against the benefit from the climate.
Mr. Orszag. So it is not net-net.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to thank the witnesses here today. This has been very interesting and I think a very productive debate. Thank you.
Mr. Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
STATE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET - DECEMBER 5, 2007
Witnesses:
- Peter Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office
- Martin Feldstein, professor of economics, Harvard University
- C. Fred Bergsten, director, Peterson Institute for International Economics
Smith was listed as NOT present for this hearing.
------------------------------------
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE HEARINGS
REVIEW OF THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE - MAY 8, 2007
Witnesses:
- Hon. Charlie Stenholm, Olsson, Frank, and Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C.
- Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.
- Dr. Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois
- Dr. Steven L. Leary, DVM, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Veterinary Affairs, Washington University, on behalf of National Association for Biomedical Research, St. Louis, Missouri
- Mr. Gene Gregory, President, United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, Georgia
- Mr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Owner, Sonoma Foie Gras, on behalf of Artisan Farmers Alliance, Sonoma, California
- Mr. David Martoska, Director of Research, Center for Consumer Freedom, Washington, D.C.
- Mr. Gene Baur, President, Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York
- Mr. Paxton Ramsey, Member, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Devers, Texas
- Ms. Barbara Determan, National Pork Producers Council, Early, Iowa
- Ms. Leslie Vagneur Lange, National Director, American Quarter Horse Association, Greeley, Colorado
- Dr. Karen Jordan, Owner, Large Animal Veterinary Services, on behalf of National Milk Producers Federation, Siler City, North Carolina
Smith had only one question.
The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congressman Stenholm, for appearing before us today. Growing up in rural America, certainly I have always paid a lot of attention to animal issues, livestock issues, and most recently, or more recently I should say, it has been brought to my attention the commitment that having animals on the premises entails, whether it is a small dog or cat or certainly a horse, and the financial commitment of caring appropriately whether it is the feeding or veterinary expenses as well. You touched a little bit on the cost of caring for these wild horses and certainly that was a new number for me. It has been brought to my attention in my district that there is a concern that you have touched on a bit of what do we do with the unwanted horses and there has been some concern expressed in my district that a rancher might find some unwanted horses on his or her property. What then? I mean, are you aware of what the options a rancher might have, that are liability issues and certainly in light of Federal penalties that may exist? Could you please elaborate?
Mr. Stenholm. You bring up a very good question, and if it is on a ranch and the horse is unwanted, it probably will be euthanized with a bullet and allowed--well, it probably won't even be buried and nobody will ever know about it. But if you are in a non-rural area, you have a problem. Landfills in many cities will not accept large animals so you don't have the option of euthanasia by a veterinarian, and here it is interesting to me when you hear--there are three ways of euthanizing that unwanted horse. One is captive bolt, which is the most humane, two is bullet, and three is overdose of barbiturates. Talk to any veterinarian and they will tell you that overdose of barbiturates is not the most humane way to end your horse's life. That is what veterinarians tell us. And we are already seeing this happening. We are seeing it reportedly in Kentucky now, these are thoroughbreds, and contrary to what you hear from California, talk to the livestock auctions and listen to them what is happening there with mistreated horses that come in to them. People bring them in because they find them wandering. People don't have the wherewithal financially to deal with that question. Renderers, we don't have many of those left. In some cases that is an option but you have to pay somebody to come get your horse. That gets into what Mr. Conaway was talking about a moment ago. What makes the Federal Government believe that we in our super wisdom can take away the private property right of that individual rancher who finds that horse to take it and receive value from if it is still of value? What makes us believe that we can do this constitutionally, but those are the choices that you are putting on those ranchers that you are talking about.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I yield back.
That's it?
--------------------------------------------
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE HEARINGS
THE BAYH-DOLE ACT (P.L. 96-517, AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK ACT OF 1980)-- THE NEXT 25 YEARS - JULY 17, 2007
Witnesses:
- Mr. Arundeep S. Pradhan, Director, Technology and Research Collaborations, Oregon Health & Science University; Vice President for Annual Meetings and Board of Trustees, Association of University Technology Managers
- Dr. Susan B. Butts, Senior Director, External Science and Technology Programs, The Dow Chemical Company
- Mr. Wayne C. Johnson, Vice President, Worldwide University Relations, Hewlett-Packard Company
- Dr. Mark A. Lemley, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology
- Dr. Mark G. Allen, Joseph M. Pettit Professor; Regents Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology; Co-founder & Chief Technology Officer, CardioMEMS, Inc., Atlanta
There were no statements or questions from Smith.
BRIDGE SAFETY: NEXT STEPS TO PROTECT THE NATION'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
Witnesses:
- Mr. Dennis C. Judycki, Associate Administrator, Research, Development, and Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Accompanied by Mr. Benjamin Tang, Principal Bridge Engineer/Team Leader, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Mr. Harry Lee James, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation; Member, Standing Committee on Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
- Dr. Kevin C. Womack, Director, Utah Transportation Center; Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University
- Mr. Mark E. Bernhardt, Director, Facility Inspection, Burgess & Niple, Inc.
There were no statements or questions from Smith.
THE UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ADDRESSING THE PRIORITIES OF THE NATION'S FIRE SERVICE - OCTOBER 2, 2007
Witnesses:
- Mr. Gregory B. Cade, Assistant Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. Fire Administrator, United States Fire Administration, Department of Homeland Security
- Dr. Sivaraj Shyam Sunder, Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce
- Mr. Steven P. Westermann, President and Chief Fire Officer, International Association of Fire Chiefs
- Captain Robert Livingston, Legislative Director of the Oregon State Council of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Fighters
- Mr. Gordon Henderson, Deputy Chief of Operations, Rome-Floyd County Fire Department; Past President of the Georgia State Firefighters Association, National Volunteer Fire Council
- Dr. John R. Hall, Jr., Assistant Vice President, Fire Analysis and Research, National Fire Protection Association
There were no statements or questions from Smith.
110-411--MINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT - OCTOBER 29, 2007
Mark Up Hearing for H.R. 3877
II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill is to authorize a research, development, and demonstration program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to accelerate the development of innovative mine communications and tracking technology; and to require the Director of NIST to work with industry and relevant Federal agencies to develop consensus standards and standard reference materials for communications in underground mines. The programs authorized in this bill are run by the National Institute for Standards and Technology.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, PHIL GINGREY, VERNON EHLERS, MICHAEL MCCAUL, TOM FEENEY AND ADRIAN SMITH
Although Members on the minority side supported the bill offered in Committee, Members expressed concern with the language directing that funding for this bill come from the funds authorized for the COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-69). Retroactively authorizing programs through previously authorized legislation sets a questionable precedent for future programs to be authorized in a similar manner.
Members expressed reservations that this practice could hamper the agencies enumerated in COMPETES which have long suffered declining or stagnant budgets. The purpose of the COMPETES Act was to increase America's competiveness and innovation capacity. It is not clear that this bill directly achieves that purpose. Members trust that this will not begin a precedent of redirecting funding intended for these programs whenever a new bill requires an authorization.
Ralph M. Hall.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Phil Gingrey.
Michael T. McCaul.
Tom Feeney.
Adrian Smith.
110-451--HEALTHCARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION ACT - NOVEMBER 15, 2007
Mark Up Hearing for H.R. 2406
II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this bill is to direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish an initiative to advance healthcare information enterprise integration; to direct NIST to work with industry toward the development of or the adoption of technology-neutral technical guidelines and standards for healthcare information technology (HIT) systems used by Federal agencies; to create a program of grants to universities and consortia for multidisciplinary HIT research centers; to direct the National High-Performance Computing Program to coordinate Federal research and development programs related to HIT; to direct NIST to establish a task force to develop recommendations on standards harmonization; and to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to conduct these activities.
XXI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 2406, THE `HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION ACT' OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, PHIL GINGREY, VERNON EHLERS, MICHAEL MCCAUL, TOM FEENEY AND ADRIAN SMITH
The American Health Information Community (AHIC) is a federal advisory body, chartered in 2005 to make recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on how best to accelerate the development and adoption of health information technology, including terminologies and classifications. Since 2005, the Federal Government has spent $122 million for activities related to coordinating health information technology, and the President has budgeted $118 million for FY 2008. In addition, AHIC and the National Library of Medicine are already working on medical terminologies and definitions. Additionally, the Office of the National Coordinator at the Department of Health and Human Services also established the Health Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP)--public/private partnership with broad participation across more than 300 health related organizations--to identify and harmonize data and technical standards for healthcare.
At the Committee markup of H.R. 2406, an amendment was offered by Mr. Hill to create a new `task force' that is run through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in consultation with the National Science Foundation (NSF). The minority feels that such a charter is not only redundant, but may slow the forward progress that is already being made by AHIC and HITSP. Indeed, AHIC has already recommended adoption of some standards, and several have already been rolled out.
Even more problematic to the minority is that the Hill amendment would go against NIST's core competencies and instead saddle NIST with responsibilities far outside of its expertise. NIST has never been a body that set standards. It takes an agreed-upon policy and develops the technical standards around that policy. However, as head of this new task force, NIST would be also charged with creating recommendations for the design of a centralized authority that develops, encourages adoption of, and maintains health information technology terminologies and classifications. These roles are beyond the scope of NIST. Further complicating this process, the amendment by Representative Hill also adds another agency into the picture--one that also lacks the expertise or experience in setting policies for health information technology. It is inadvisable for NIST to consult specifically with the NSF. While the NSF does have an important role to play with information technologies basic research, some of which may have the potential to be used by the health industry, determining standards and health terminology is not within their expertise.
Representative Gingrey (GA) offered a perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by Representative Hill (IN). The purpose of this perfecting amendment was to remove the National Science Foundation (NSF) from the task force to evaluate creation of national policies on health information technology standards. This amendment was supported by the minority, but was voted down by the majority. The Hill amendment to the bill was accepted in its original format after a vote in Committtee and will be included in the bill that is reported to the House.
In addition to concerns about the Hill amendment, the minority is also concerned with the language directing funding for this bill come from funds authorized for the COMPETES Act of 2007 (PL 110-69). Retroactively authorizing programs through previously authorized legislation sets a questionable precedent for future programs to be authorized in a similar manner. This practice would hamper the agencies enumerated in COMPETES which have long suffered declining or stagnant budgets. The purpose of the COMPETES Act was to increase America's competitiveness and innovation capacity. It is not clear that this bill directly achieves that purpose.
We urge our colleagues to consider the vital importance of properly and effectively creating national policies on health information technology standards in a focused manner so that these policies are universally and quickly adoptable.
Ralph M. Hall.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Phil Gingrey.
Michael T. McCaul.
Tom Feeney.
Adrian Smith.
0 comments:
Post a Comment