mr. barton. >> i have unanimous consent request. ave a new member on the republican side that's joined us, mr. boehner. i asked that he be added on the minority side. for the remainder of the markup with full voting privileges. is there an objection to that? >> i have heard one. from mr. boehner. >> we're glad to have our leader here. >> we welcome the republican leader to our committee. >> the vote now comes on the engel/capps amendment. the ayes have it and the amendment is greed to. . >> mr. chairman, two amendments i'll offer in block. to the relief of the committee, they have nothing to do with biomaz. >> let's not move on. two amendments. >> walden 3 and walden 2. will offer them in block. >> mr. chairman, we don't have walden 3. i mean -- >> we have walden 3. they're looking for walden 3. >> one is division "b." >> one is division "b." and one is to division@@@@" > makeup where this health commission would be practitioners practice in the rural areas so they have a voice of what it is like to practice in rural areas. i believe

mr. barton and mr. stupac at the end of division c, the title -- >> the amendment will be considered as read. >> i thank the gentle man. i want to thank them for co- sponsoring this amendment. the committee is not in order. >> the gentleman is correct. the committee will please come to order. the gentlemen in taxes is entitled to being heard -- in texas is entitled to being heard. >> what kind of health package should we adopt? we should all be united in that we need more transparency in the health field. this amendment is a strong transparency amendment and it would establish the health-care information transparency office in the department of health and human services. that commission would be composed of five commissioners appointed by the president with consent of the senate. this commission would have the authority to get the information on health care pricing, health care quality, health care outcomes, and make it available to the health care user community and open -- in an open and transparent f

mr. barton. >> this is one of the ones i'm going to use ten minutes on. it's really, really important. when he started his comments i interrupted and i apologize. i strongly disagreed. but he was saying that as a predicate to say what he said about the hospital in his district, which is one of the outstanding physician-owned hospitals. there are many states for whatever reasons that don't want to allow them at all we're not trying to allow a physician-owned hospital where the state doesn't allow it. but where the states do allow it webl in the overwhelming majority these hospitals rank at the top in every category. in terms of quality, performance, cost, outcomes, you name it. however you evaluate a hospital. these hospitals are at the top. there may be a few problem physician-owned hospitals. those are the exception. not the rule. this bans exception. it has a limited exception for somewhere between five and ten hospitals. which is very arbitrary. when mr. gonzalez says he wants to fix the problem. i don't hear him say he wants to ban them. i am more than willing to work with mr. gonz

mr. mulvihill. now we turn to peter barton hutt, senior counsel in the law firm of covington and burming, specializing in food and drug law. he began his practice in 1960 and has been with the firm ever since. he's a lecturer at harvard law school where he has taught the last 16 years. from 1971 to '75, he was the chief counsel for the fda. mr. hutt is a graduate of yale university and harvard law school with a master of law degree in food and drug law from nyu school of law. mr. hutt, welcome to the committee. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appear before you today at the invitation of the committee to present my own personal views on section 521 of the federal food, drug and cosmetic act which provides for national uniformity in the regulation of medical devices. section 521 was enacted, of course, as part of the medical device amendment of 1976. as i relayed in think prepared statement, the medical device amendments of 1976 and specifically section 721 were enacted or developed during my tenure as chief counsel for fda, and i was deeply involved in their development. the medical devic

mr. mulvihill. now we turn to peter barton hutt, senior counsel in the law firm of covington and burming, specializing in food and drug law. he began his practice in 1960 and has been with the firm ever since. he's a lecturer at harvard law school where he has taught the last 16 years. from 1971 to '75, he was the chief counsel for the fda. mr. hutt is a graduate of yale university and harvard law school with a master of law degree in food and drug law from nyu school of law. mr. hutt, welcome to the committee. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appear before you today at the invitation of the committee to present my own personal views on section 521 of the federal food, drug and cosmetic act which provides for national uniformity in the regulation of medical devices. section 521 was enacted, of course, as part of the medical device amendment of 1976. as i relayed in think prepared statement, the medical device amendments of 1976 and specifically section 721 were enacted or developed during my tenure as chief counsel for fda, and i was deeply involved in their development. the medical devic