Richard Burr

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the memory of the late L. Richardson Preyer who served my home state of North Carolina and our country with distinction. Richardson Preyer has an outstanding record of public service dating back to his time in the U.S. Navy during World War II, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. Through his years as a State Superior Court Judge, a United States District Court Judge and then as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for six terms, Richardson Preyer saw his responsibility and fulfilled his duty when called upon. Serving with a quiet demeanor but effective in getting the job done, he commanded the respect of his constituents and his peers in the Congress. Richardson Preyer was always concerned about the welfare of the people and his desire to help those who were less fortunate was well known. It was the hallmark of his unsuccessful campaign for Governor of North Carolina in 1964 and then of his Congressional career from 1969 to 1981. Richardson Preyer was never too busy to give of his time and his considerable abilities when he was needed. When Congressman Preyer passed away recently, North Carolina lost a valiant patriot who loved his country, and who served us well. I am honored to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Richardson Preyer and I extend my sympathy to the Preyer family on their loss.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mr. Andy Schindler and the fine folks at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in being named to Fortune magazine's annual list of ``100 Best Companies to Work For.'' I have always been proud of R.J. Reynolds and its employees and I remain honored to be their Representative in Congress. Reynolds is one of North Carolina's best corporate citizens, one of its largest taxpayers, and an invaluable asset to our state. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time coming for Reynolds to receive this national commendation as North Carolinians have known of Reynolds' benefits for years. During my tenure in serving the people of the Fifth District of North Carolina, I have had the pleasure of working with and getting to know many of the executives and employees at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. They are all extremely dedicated, hard working, creative, and proud of their work. An organization is only as good as its people; and the workers at Reynolds are second to none, and it shows in the final product. Congratulations to Reynolds and its employees for winning this award. You've always been at the top of my list. Keep up the good work.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas, Mr. Reyes, for introducing this important resolution. Dr. David Heymann of the World Health Organization once described tuberculosis as ``a disease once thought to be under control, which has returned with a vengeance to kill 1.5 million people a year.'' TB was once the leading cause of death in the United States. In the 1940s, scientists discovered drugs that would treat TB, and infection rates began to decline. Since that time, however, infection rates both in the U.S. and abroad have increased dramatically. Today, one third of the world's population has a latent TB infection. These increases have not gone unnoticed by international organizations. In fact, in 1993, the World Health Organization declared tuberculosis a global emergency. These increases in infection rates are due to a number of causes. Increases in HIV/AIDS infection rates are accelerating the spread of TB. In addition, poorly supervised or incomplete treatment threatens to make TB incurable as multidrug resistant TB cases rise. This problem is particularly serious in underdeveloped countries. A total of 22 countries are home to 80 percent of TB cases. Tuberculosis is particularly prevalent in India, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and parts of Latin America. The problem with TB poses a long term threat to global health. It is estimated that, if efforts to fight TB are not strengthened, 3 5 million people will die of the disease in the next 20 years. H. Res. 67 addresses many of these problems. The bill recognizes the importance of combating TB on a worldwide basis and acknowledges the severe impact that TB has on minority populations in the US. By passing the rosolution, we are recognizing the importance of substantially increasing US investment in international TB control. The bill also emphasizes the importance of efforts to eliminate TB in our own nation. It is my hope that by passing this resoluticin, Congress will make a commitment to fighting TB both on the national and global level.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have sat and listened to this tonight and what misses out of this debate is the human face behind the issue. It is that senior who sits at home, that has no coverage; that senior who has a Medicare system that this institution has refused to change year after year after year, that does not meet the needs of medicine today, the diagnostic tools that exist and the treatments that are available to those that can pay. We ought to have a debate today about the changes in Medicare, but we are not. We are going to have a debate about how we hamstring choice for seniors, how we tie up the companies who can provide that choice so that, in fact, they will not, further taking seniors and limiting them to the existing system. Now, the gentleman before me, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) said that it is just about paying them more money. One of the reasons that they are dropping out of the system is that we underfunded this particular portion, and every Member bipartisanly has agreed to that. But the question is, is there accountability? Can they prove the value of their service? I believe that they can; I believe that this motion to instruct in fact hampers any additional plus choice options in the marketplace for seniors that either have been dropped or are currently underserved. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage every Member to vote against this motion to instruct and to vote for additional choices for seniors with health care.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that many of the agriculture needs of the U.S. are covered in this legislation, yet I need to express my concerns with the reimportation provision. It is important to remember why the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1988 (PDMA) was enacted in the first place. At the time, there was considerable evidence that counterfeit and otherwise adulterated drugs were entering U.S. commerce from abroad. After a lengthy investigation, the Commerce Committee concluded that greater restrictions on pharmaceutical imports into the U.S. were essential to protect the safety of American patients and the integrity of the U.S. drug supply. In response, a bipartisan Congress enacted PDMA. PDMA was designed to (1) prevent the introduction of prescription drugs that may have been improperly stored, handled, and shipped overseas, and (2) reduce the opportunities for importation of counterfeit and unapproved prescription drugs. As Vice Chairman of the Commerce Oversight and Investigations (O&I) Subcommittee, I have participated in two hearings on the importation of counterfeit bulk drugs. Currently, even with PDMA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Justice, and U.S. Customs Service are having a very difficult time inspecting overseas drug manufacturing facilities and confiscating counterfeit bulk drugs that enter the U.S. According to a DEA agent, 25% of the drugs coming across the U.S./ Mexico border are counterfeit and a majority of the remaining 75% are not from FDA approved sources. If those agencies are having a difficult time with PDMA in place, I dread to see what will happen after Congress destroys PDMA with this reimportation language. The bottom line in this issue is consumer safety. When my constituents in the 5th District of North Carolina go to their neighborhood pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, they should not have to think about the quality of the drugs they are purchasing. I did not spend two years modernizing the Food and Drug Administration to sit back and allow my constituents to worry about counterfeit drugs entering the U.S. There is also an issue of cost within this reimportation debate. Members of Congress who support reimportation believe that this change in law will provide Americans with cheaper pharmaceutical drugs. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that reimportation will save Americans money. First of all, the FDA is asking for at least $23 million to start implementing the reimportation provision. Most likely that $23 million will grow to $60 or $90 million very quickly. A witness from the U.S. Customs Service testified at the most recent Commerce O&I Subcommittee hearing that the Customs Service would also need additional money to patrol the reimported drug shipments. Second, there is no mandate in this legislation that wholesalers and pharmacists have to pass the savings from reimported drugs onto U.S. consumers. Various middlemen, both in the U.S. and abroad, will take in the profits, while consumers will bear the risk. Today, Internet sales remove the middlemen, but not the risk. The Energy and Commerce Committee lead by Chairman Dingell pointed out that reimportation may not always translate into lower priced drugs for consumers. On July 10, 1985, Chairman Dingell said, ``To those of you who would have us believe that prescription drug diversion is just another way to give the consumer a price break, I say, look about you. These are not counterfeit tee shirts or counterfeit Gucci handbags. No consumer can possibly weigh the risk involved in the purchase of medicine which has not been properly stored, or which has been shipped outside channels of commerce where it is properly protected with law.'' Americans' trust of Congress will quickly erode when cost savings are not found through reimportation and people become ill and possibly die due to imported and reimported drugs that are counterfeit or adulterated. The reimportation language contained in this legislation not only affects the quality of drugs entering the U.S. but it also poses a large threat to international commerce. At the last minute, several members of Congress pushed for language that interferes with contracts between American manufacturers and foreign countries/wholesalers. That language is unconstitutional based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' There have been several court decisions that uphold the rights of patent owners and manufacturers to decide to whom they sell their products. The contract language contained in this legislation clearly contradicts those court decisions. On June 28, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4680, legislation that would provide Medicare beneficiaries with comprehensive, high quality, and affordable drug coverage. I am pleased to be an author of that legislation. I agree that American consumers should have access to low priced pharmaceuticals, but the best way to that access is through drug coverage, not reimportation. Dr. Jere Goyan, former FDA Commissioner under Jimmy Carter, summarized this issue well: ``I respect the motivation of the members of Congress who support this [reimportation] legislation. They are reading, as am I, stories about high prescription drug prices and people who are unable to pay for the drugs they need. But the solution to this problem lies in better insurance coverage for people who need prescription drugs, not in threatening the quality of medicines for all of us.'' I am pleased that adherence to the FDA's gold standard, Section 505 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, has been placed into the reimportation language. Initially, some members of Congress wanted to create a second, less-restrictive standard for pharmaceuticals entering the U.S. By specifically mandating that all drugs imported and reimported into the U.S. must pass Section 505 standards, Congress is establishing an important hurdle for wholesalers and pharmacists to overcome. Unfortunately, I do not think that the FDA and Customs will be able to check all of the paperwork to ensure that the drugs have been tested and that they passed Section 505 standards. Counterfeit paperwork is easier to produce than counterfeit drugs. Although I have used the term ``reimportation'' throughout this statement, please understand that Congress is not just talking about reimporting drugs. We are also talking about importing drugs. ``Reimported drugs'' are manufactured in U.S. quality controlled facilities, shipped for sale overseas, and imported back into the U.S. ``Imported drugs'' are made overseas in manufacturing plants that may never be inspected by the FDA, shipped to a foreign county with pill colors, shapes, and labeling for that country, and then imported into the U.S. by U.S. wholesalers and pharmacists. This language will allow imported drugs into the U.S. I hope that both national and internatonal AIDS groups realize that this language will stop pharmaceutical companies from selling AIDS medications to foreign countries at greatly reduced prices because the bill does not prevent those medications from re-entering the stream of commerce with great financial gian to foreign countries and huge financial losses to pharmaceutical companies. The last section of the reimportation language is a bill by Representative Gutknecht. The FDA reviewed this legislation and, in a letter to Representative Dingell, expressed opposition to the vagueness of the bill's language. Because the term ``warning notice'' is so poorly defined, the bill will cripple the FDA's ability to contact any importer that has suspicious drugs at a U.S. port of entry. In the letter, the FDA reassures Congress that they could internally address the issu eof personal use letters to seniors. There is no good reason why Representative Gutknecht's bill is attached to this legislation. In conclusion, I am deeply concerned about the safety and efficacy of the drugs that will fill Americans' medicine cabinets if this legislation passes. For decades, the U.S. has set the highest standard in the world for quality prescription drugs. Becasue of this high standard, the U.S. is home to the discovery and manufacturing of the most innovative new therapies in this world. If Congress passes this legislation, we will be destroying the safety and efficacy of drugs consumed by our constituents. We will also be giving pharmaceutical companies every reason to pull their headquarters and manufacturing plants out of the U.S. and into countries with lower labor and manufacturing costs. Why some members of Congress want to both expose Americans to counterfeit and adulterated drugs and drive industry out of the U.S. is truly beyond me. It is for these reasons that I would vote against the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I submit the following items to be entered into the Record. 1. Letters opposing reimportation from the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mental Health Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, ALS Association, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Kidney Cancer Association, Log Cabin AIDS Policy Institute, National Prostrate Cancer Coalition, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Pulmonary Hypertension Association, Society for Women's Health Research, Allergy and Asthma Network Mothers of Asthmatics, and 2. A Sept. 20, 2000 letter from Representative Burr, Representative Tauzin, Representative Greenwood, Representative Oxley, Representative Pickering, and Representative Ehrlich to Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, October 4, 2000. Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Majority Leader: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region, strongly opposes legislation that would require American manufacturers to sell unlimited quantities of prescription drug products to any foreign wholesaler. I urge your personal intervention in this very serious matter. I urge you to reject these so-called ``non-discrimination'' provisions proposed by Congressman Henry Waxman which have been slightly modified for inclusion in the agricultural appropriations conference report as they would set a harmful precedent for all U.S. businesses and industries. These modified ``non-discrimination'' provisions would pose a significant threat to current commerce and international business practices by attacking manufacturers' ability to freely contract. Furthermore, there has not been a single hearing to study the total impact of these provisions on business operations including the creation of jobs, as well as the U.S. economy. Finally, permitting the importation to the U.S. of products sold abroad where prices are not determined by market forces sets a terrible precedent. Again, I urge your timely intervention and I urge you and your colleagues to reject the drug reimportation provisions generally and the modified Waxman proposal particularly. Sincerely, Tom.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to once again thank my friends, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and all the members of our committee and staff who have worked on what I think is very important legislation. I will end with a quote from the hearing that we had on this bill. It was given by Dr. Nick Bryant, a former Director of Diagnostic Radiology at the NIH. Dr. Bryant said, ``I believe that the creation of a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering is essential to promote the development of new imaging techniques and technologies. In order to flourish and grow consistently at the NIH, a scientific field requires an organization with the mandate, the responsibility, the authority, and the resources to direct and drive investigation in that field. In the NIH structure, only institutes possess those attributes.'' I believe his testimony to our committee best sums up why every Member of Congress should support this legislation. Most Members of Congress strongly support an increase in NIH funding. Additional resources are important. But we should pass H.R. 1795 before we commit more money. Our legislation will ensure a greater return on our investment in medical science.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering Establishment Act, is supported by over 170 of our colleagues in the House. It passed out of the Committee on Commerce under voice vote, and I want to commend my colleague on the other side, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), for her great support and co-sponsorship of this legislation. H.R. 1795 establishes a new National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering at the NIH, the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Speaker, in an age where we talk about producing more resources for the National Institutes of Health to do additional research, it is incumbent on this institution to create a structure that makes sure that we are chasing the best and the brightest. When we talk about the issue of biomedical imaging, we need to look at ways to detect at an earlier stage breast cancer and many other terminal and chronic illnesses. It is incumbent on this institution to make sure that this institute is there so that the resources that are made available for imaging changes the latest and greatest breakthroughs that could possibly be brought to the patient community. MRIs and CT scans were not created in this country, but they were refined in this country because of the emphasis we put on research and development and on the refinement to make sure that every possible tool is available for early detection of disease. H.R. 1795 creates a research environment in which new imaging and biotechnologies, techniques, and devices can be developed for clinical use much more rapidly than under the present system. For those that might say this does not require a new institute, let me assure them that for 3 years we have tried to work with the National Institutes of Health to make sure that the proper attention was paid to this very important field of imaging and what we found was that every disease in its research stages uses basic imaging, but there was not an effort to move to the next generation of imaging that can mean the difference between the number of options that patients are provided in their treatment, in many cases the difference between life and death because of early detection. In the last Congress, 80 bipartisan House Members cosponsored this bill, but it was to create only an imaging institute. Others supported a bill by my dear friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), to establish a bioengineering center. It was our belief that to combine these was in the best interest of both efforts and that we could rely on the administrative resources of a single institute versus dual. Mr. Speaker, it is important that our colleagues know our effort here is to not create a new bureaucracy but it is to put somebody in charge of this new exciting field that is driven by technology to make sure that every patient in America has early detection as a tool against disease whether it is chronic or whether it is fatal. My hope is that every Member will support this legislation and that we can move it so that it becomes law and this institute becomes a permanent part of the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1795.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1795) to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering, as amended.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2346. It is an important initiative to improve compliance with FCC rules governing citizens band radio service. Citizens band radio service can serve some very important functions. For instance, many people use CB radios in order to communicate in times of emergency. America's trucking community uses CB radios to report accidents and traffic problems on our Nation's highways and roadways. Many other people use CBs for simply short-distance communications, and others use it as a source of entertainment. These constructive uses, however, are being overshadowed by the practice of a few bad actors. A number of individuals have taken advantage of the unlicensed nature of CB radio to operate outside the boundaries of FCC rules. In particular, a recurrent problem is CB users boosting their signal strength with power amplifiers. Further, some CB users operate outside the permit frequencies allocated for CB radio service. When these violations occur, unexpected and potentially harmful interference can result for others who use the service. Traditionally, Congress has looked to the FCC to enforce its rules. In fact, current communications statutes give the FCC great authority to enforce its rules and take remedial action when the rules are not followed. Unfortunately, the FCC has made clear that reported violations regarding CB radios will be investigated only as time, manpower and priorities permit. The FCC has also indicated that it will only investigate CB violations where there is convincing evidence that results from a violation of the rules has occurred, and then only on a low-priority basis. H.R. 2346 is an effort to provide a back-up enforcement mechanism. Under H.R. 2346, a State or local government is given authority to enact a statute or ordinance requiring operators of CB radio service within their jurisdiction to obey FCC rules. Violators would be subject to enforcement by State or local government. The bill is carefully drafted so as not to interfere with the FCC's enforcement authority and provides suspected offenders with an appeals process. This noncontroversial bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce by voice vote and enjoys bipartisan support. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his work on this bill, and ask all Members to support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2346.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3100, as amended.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3100, the Know Your Caller Act, deals with the business practice of telemarketing. There are thousands of reputable telemarketing companies that provide a benefit to consumers by offering a broad range of consumer options and opportunities. Some companies are helping to grow our economy, employing thousands of citizens and fueling the economy with literally billions of dollars. Increasingly, however, telemarketers are the cause of complaints. Consumers are concerned that telemarketers are intruding into their homes. We continue to see stories about telemarketing schemes that separate consumers from their hard-earned money. In fact, the telemarketing complaints lodged with the Federal Trade Commission seem to underscore these concerns. In 1997 there were 2,260 complaints. In 1999 that number rose to 17,423. Today's bill takes these complaints seriously. Thanks to the excellent work of the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the legislation strips away the ability of telemarketers to hide behind anonymous telephone calls. H.R. 3100 prohibits telemarketers from blocking the transmission of caller identification information. In addition, the bill affirmatively requires telemarketers to transmit caller identification in their equipment, if their equipment is capable of doing so. I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance between the consumer's right to privacy and safety and the telemarketer's legitimate business interests. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I think that it is time that we move towards an era that in this great country we can create an atmosphere that ensures hope and eliminates what-ifs.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 576 concerning childhood cancers. Sadly, most of us have had a personal experience with cancer. We have seen it attack a family member or a friend, a coworker, or we have been diagnosed ourselves. But even more sadly, cancer takes the lives of some 2,300 American boys and girls every year. Imagine a school of 100 classrooms empty because of childhood cancer. We stand with our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), who have both lost children to cancer, in resolving to ensure that opportunities for childhood cancer research are funded, that we attract the best and the brightest scientists to pediatric oncology, and that as many children as possible participate in and benefit from the discoveries made through clinical trials. We will work together so that no other parent has to feel the loss of a child due to cancer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.