Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, for the last several years, I have been involved in a very productive partnership with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], in an effort to extend better patent protection to the biotechnology industry. Today I am pleased to be here on the floor joining with him as we culminate that effort and as we send to the President legislation that will enact this much needed reform. The biotechnology industry is a bright promise for our Nation's success in the international market of the future. The industry was originated and developed in the United States. This uniquely American enterprise is expected to confer an annual benefit of approximately $50 billion on the American economy by the year 2000. And even today, it has created more than 100,000 new highly paid, highly skilled jobs in this economy. But more important than its economic contributions are the benefits biotechnology is bringing to the fields of medicine and agriculture. Through biotechnology, new strains of plants are being produced that are resistant to disease, that can thrive in hostile terrain, and can survive adverse climatic conditions. Through biotechnology, new human drugs are on the market today that, when administered to heart attack victims, save lives by dissolving dangerous blood clots. Other drugs treat anemia, reducing need for blood transfusions in patients who are suffering from chronic kidney failure. And human growth hormone is today enriching the lives of children throughout the world. American companies are now developing treatments or even potential cures for a variety of hard to treat diseases, including AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, and Lou Gehrig's disease. And yet the promise of biotechnology is seriously challenged today by a simple and obvious inadequacy in America's patent law. That inadequacy opens the door for foreign firms to expropriate American inventions and compete in this country directly with the inventing firm. In essence, the patent law confers and advantage on foreign companies not enjoyed by the American inventing firm and actually encourages a pilfering of United States creativity. We have examples today of that very practice occurring. It is that defect in the patent law that H.R. 587 is designed to address. In most cases, biotechnology products are genetically engineered forms of chemicals which naturally occur. The goal of biotechnology is to create the chemicals in larger and commercially viable quantities. To do that, the company engineers a host cell to produce the product. The firm then treats the host cell with a frequently straightforward and well-known process to create the naturally occurring chemical in commercially viable quantities. The company cannot patent the end product because it occurs in nature. All the company is doing is creating that product in larger quantities. The company can patent the host cell but, under current law, the use of a patented host cell abroad to manufacture a product for importation into the United States is not an infringement of the American host cell patent. Under a series of court decisions, most prominently In Re Durden, the inventor has great difficulty in obtaining a patent on the process that is used to produce the product. The legislation that the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] has brought to the House today and which I have been pleased to work with him on over the last several years will open the door to a more certain award of process patents. In turn the biotechnology firms that have the assurance of receiving those process patents will exhibit a greater willingness to make research investments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis, the very research investments that are essential to sustain and advance this highly important American industry. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to urge support for this measure and passage of it by the House, and I join with our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], in commending the gentleman from California for his legislative skill which has brought the measure to this point which, when added to the Senate bill already passed by that body, can then send this measure directly to the President for his signature and for enactment into law. It is a positive measure. It will advance a very important industry, and I join with the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] in strongly urging its passage.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manger's amendment and passage of the bill. The bill is important because it will promote competition in all telecommunications markets, with attendant benefits for consumers and for the Nation's economy. The cable television market will be made fully competitive as telephone companies are given the right to offer cable television services. The local telephone market will be made fully competitive as cable companies and others are given the right to offer local telephone service. The long distance and telecommunications equipment markets will be made more competitive as the seven Bell operating companies are free to enter these markets. Increased competition in all telecommunications markets will provide long-term consumer benefits. Consumers will see many new services, lower prices, and greater choices. The bill will also encourage new investments by telecommunications companies, building for our Nation the much heralded National Information Infrastructure. As telephone companies seek to offer cable television service, they will need to install broadband facilities-- fiber optic or coaxial lines--between their central offices and the premises of their users. Likewise, if cable companies desire to offer local telephone and data services, they will need to install switches to make their current broadband architecture interactive and two-way in nature. Both industries would then have the capabilities to deliver simultaneously telephone service, cable TV service, data services, and many other telecommunications services across their networks. The bill, therefore, will provide the business reasons for the major investments which are necessary to complete the National Information Infrastructure. The manager's amendment is equally important for promoting competition in telecommunications markets. It establishes fair terms and conditions that will assure that the Bell companies open their local telephone networks before they are permitted to enter into the long distance and equipment markets. The manger's amendment creates a careful balance between the competing interests of the local telephone companies and long distance companies that was lacking in the bill reported from the Commerce Committee. I strongly urge adoption of the manager's amendment and passage of the bill, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert, for a colloquy regarding the language he and I have crafted which is contained in the manager's amendment and which governs the application of H.R. 1555's interconnection requirements to rural telephone companies.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the amendment that I offered at full committee and which was approved on a voice vote was meant to assure that the more than 1,000 smaller rural telephone companies in our Nation would not have to comply immediately with the competitive checklist contained in section 242 of H.R. 1555. Rural telephone companies were exempted because the interconnection requirements of the checklist would impose stringent technical and economic burdens on rural companies, whose markets are in the near term unlikely to attract competitors. It was never our intention, however, to shield these companies from competition, and it is in that context that the language the gentleman and I have agreed to is pertinent, and I would yield back to him to explain the amendment we have crafted.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment and in support of H.R. 1555 and would like to take this time to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] with respect to legislation we have crafted concerning the application of the interconnection requirements with respect to small telephone companies, and at this time, I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for that colloquy.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding. I join him in strong opposition to the Klug amendment, which threatens the very substantial progress that we are making in the Appalachian region in our effort to become a part of the American economic mainstream. Since 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission has been a major force in our economic progress, enabling the construction of industrial parks, water systems, wastewater systems, access roads to those industrial parks, in many instances shell buildings. We are growing economically as a consequence of what the Appalachian Regional Commission is doing. Libraries have been built, schools in our region have become more capable and have expanded their course offerings, enabling the people in our area to have access to the same kind of instruction that students in the more financially fortunate parts of the country have long had access to. Factories have opened and new jobs have been created. But we still have a very long way to go. In my district in the southwestern part of Virginia, unemployment rates in some of our counties are in excess of 20 percent. I know that is a situation that pertains in many of the counties that exist in the Appalachian region elsewhere across that 12-State area. The ARC is a very important part to our answer to that set of problems, and it is a wise investment in the future of our regional economy and the economy of the Nation as a whole. It has been pointed out by some of the other speakers that when the ARC makes an investment in an industrial park or other job creating facility, that the economy expands, that the tax base expands, and that as a consequence of that, the Government more than gets its money back based upon the very modest investment that is made in Federal dollars in the first instance. I have figures showing that for every dollar the ARC invests in an industrial park or other job creating facility, that $12 in private sector investment is stimulated. That clearly shows the very important economic effect that the ARC is having. It shows that it is a wise investment in our economic future, and for that reason I join the gentleman in his strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?