mr. barton. i'm going to start off the questions with a more junior member to me, mr.marsie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the real questions that people have is the safety of this drug, and there was a real concern going back to 1976 and that swine flu epidemic and the diseases later associated with the distribution of that drug. so just so i can understand this, this drug has not yet been fda approved; is that correct? >> it just was licensed today. >> it was licensed today. that's great news. can you talk a little bit about what is different -- what the difference is between this drug and the drug back in 1976 in terms of what the fda and the agency believe will be the impact on americans? >> well, mr. markey, one of the first steps the president took was to actually gather the experts from 1976 together and ask for advice about what went right and what went wrong. and we had an opportunity to meet with everybody from the then-secretary of health and environment to the surgeon general to some of the scientists who were involved, and they gave some very good adv

mr. barton? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you, madam secretary, for being here. i want to say that this is a very important issue. obviously, america and the world is worried about the pandemic flu. we have begun to discuss this this year back in april when we had a hearing on the h1n1 virus. i'd like to review some of the recent history. the department of hhs has responded by declaring a public health emergency which has allowed the food and drug administration to approve the use of approved anti-virals and other measures. the centers for disease control has responded by releasing anti-viral drugs from the strategic national stockpile. to date all 50 states have received their portion of that stockpile, which has been replenished through purchases. hhs is working with the department of homeland security and is coordinating response efforts. much of this work has been successful because we're not breaking new ground. this committee and the federal government has begun serious work

mr. barton? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you, madam secretary, for being here. i want to say that this is a very important issue. obviously, america and the world is worried about the pandemic flu. we have begun to discuss this this year back in april when we had a hearing on the h1n1 virus. i'd like to review some of the recent history. the department of hhs has responded by declaring a public health emergency which has allowed the food and drug administration to approve the use of approved anti-virals and other measures. the centers for disease control has responded by releasing anti-viral drugs from the strategic national stockpile. to date all 50 states have received their portion of that stockpile, which has been replenished through purchases. hhs is working with the department of homeland security and is coordinating response efforts. much of this work has been successful because we're not breaking new ground. this committee and the federal government has begun serious work

mr. barton informs me he would like a roll-call vote. >> martin vaughn, that was a little bit about the surtaxn >> the senate bill doesn't have a surtax sthashgs correct? >> correct. the senate has chosen a different option. the doe tails are still up in the air. >> the surtax has a couple of goals. it would help control costs. back to hr 3200. employer provided insurance and individual purchased insurance. >> the pep at for that would be at 2.5% penalty assessed on the tax return if you don't have coverage. on the employer side, we want to keep employers providing coverage. with the new public options available through the exchange. people that now have coverage minus great to those new alternatives. they don't provide coverage? >> that starts out at 8%? jo correct. it starts out at 2% and goes up to 8%. they don't want it to be a burden. the argument made is that a lot of employers have a good reason to offer the coverage. it is how we think about our jobs as americans. that doesn't go away under this bill. if the employer can provide ips, there's a built in subsidy there that has to be take

mr. barton. >> thank you. before i give my prepared statement, let me say how much i personally appreciate you. do not take what i'm about to say to personally. i think it does say something, given the serious issue which you have traditionally tackled as your subcommittee chairmanship that today's hearing does not rank at the top of that list. it shows how much support you have. they may all be here, but they are disguised as empty chairs. >> most of the committee is down in consumer protection. that is why we started late because i am also on the committee. >> i will take over if you want to go down there. >> can we have a vote on that? today's hearing does have several interesting questions between bottled water and tap water. these differences arise and approaches as well as in process and treatment. several witnesses will discuss the possibly debate ways in which bottled water regulations should be change and possibly improve. other witnesses will discuss how the industry can be more transparent and respo

mr. barton informs me he would like a roll-call vote. >> martin vaughn, that was a little bit about the surtaxhe house bill. the senate does not have a surtax, correct? >> correct. the senate has chosen a different option to fund its plan. the details are still up in the air because the finance committee senators are still trying to negotiate this and they have not released their legislation publicly yet. the way that is going is that they are talking about a tax on insurance companies, which would affect only what is called " gold-plated plans" or the most expensive plans. those plans that are above $24,000 in annual coverage. it would place a surtax on those with a couple of goals. it would generate revenue in the same way that the house what the surtax does, but also, it would havhelp control costs by steering people away from those very expensive plans and making them more thoughtful about their choices and economizing more. >> back to hr3200. employer-provided insurance and individual-purchased insurance, what are the provisions in the house bill with regard to individual-purchased insura

mr. barton informs me he would like a roll-call vote. >> martin vaughn, that was a little bit about the surtax house bill. the senate does not have a surtax, correct? >> correct. the senate has chosen a different option to fund its plan. the details are still up in the air because the finance committee senators are still trying to negotiate this and they have not released their legislation publicly yet. the way that is going is that they are talking about a tax on insurance companies, which would affect only what is called " gold-plated plans" or the most expensive plans. those plans that are above $24,000 in annual coverage. it would place a surtax on those with a couple of goals. it would generate revenue in the same way that the house what the surtax does, but also, it would havhelp control costs by steering people away from those very expensive plans and making them more thoughtful about their choices and economizing more. >> back to hr3200. employer-provided insurance and individual-purchased insurance, what are the provisions in the house bill with regard to individual-purchased insuranc

mr. barton informs me he would like a roll-call vote. >> martin vaughn, that was a little bit about the surtaxthe house bill. the senate does not have a surtax, correct? >> correct. the senate has chosen a different option to fund its plan. the details are still up in the air because the finance committee senators are still trying to negotiate this and they have not released their legislation publicly yet. the way that is going is that they are talking about a tax on insurance companies, which would affect only what is called " gold-plated plans" or the most expensive plans. those plans that are above $24,000 in annual coverage. it would place a surtax on those with a couple of goals. it would generate revenue in the same way that the house what the surtax does, but also, it would havhelp control costs by steering people away from those very expensive plans and making them more thoughtful about their choices and economizing more. >> back to hr3200. employer-provided insurance and individual-purchased insurance, what are the provisions in the house bill with regard to individual-purchased insur

mr. space and chairman waxman and ranking member barton, mr. pallone, for acting so quickly on this one, mr. space and i brought it up last week for attention. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i would yield four minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. space, who is the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. space, is recognized for four minutes. mr. space: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3663, legislation that i deprooed -- introduced with my friend, mr. terry from nebraska, which will delay implementation of accreditation requirements imposed on america's pharmacies, who offer service to medicare beneficiaries. i think that my colleague from nebraska, as well as my colleague and chairman pallone from new jersey have done an ample job explaining the predicament that we find ourselves in with regards to the accreditation and sure the bond requirements that will be impo