Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 261 I inadvertently voted ``aye'' when I meant to vote ``nay''.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a true example of technological innovation and disease prevention. I've just returned from the introduction of an interactive World Wide Web site that calculates nutritional value of an individual's diet. This technological innovation created by the Bowman Gray School of Medicine makes it possible for anyone with access to a computer to live a longer, healthier life. Diet is often the first step in effective health care and Dr. Richard Janeway from Winston-Salem, North Carolina has been a leader in the effort to learn more about the relationship between what we eat and how we feel. Dr. Janeway was the Dean of Wake Forest University's Bowman Gray School of Medicine for 25 years before deciding to hand over the reigns to his successor. However, being a man of hard work and strong moral character, Dr. Janeway plans to continue his service by taking on the duties of the first distinguished professor of health care management. Under his leadership, Bowman Gray Medical School has emerged as one of the most respected and prominent medical schools in the Nation, leading the country in research, academics, and treatment. Bowman Gray has also become the Nation's top resource for information regarding the link between nutrition and disease. Due to his diligence and persistence, Bowman Gray has also recently become one of the top employers in Forsyth County by providing 10,400 jobs for hard-working Americans. But I know Dr. Janeway best as a good neighbor and a strong leader in North Carolina. He was one of the founders of Leadership Winston-Salem and served on two subcommittees for the Winston-Salem Foundation. He was elected to the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County board of education and served there as chairman of the policy committee and he has also been recognized by the United Way for his community services as the recipient of the Alexis de Tocqueville Volunteer Leadership Award. Dr. Janeway has been a good friend to North Carolina and I would like to thank him for his innovation and commendable leadership.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Federal Government makes a mistake. The test of truly effective government is how quickly an institution can correct those errors. Today I stand here on the House floor to remedy such a mistake. In 1990 the EPA listed a chemical called ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, or EGBE, on its hazardous air pollutants list under the Clean Air Act amendments. This chemical is considered not harmful to the stratosphere and according to scientific studies does not harm the environment. This is in fact a case of mistaken identity. Although the listing of chemicals seems like an insignificant blunder, the incorrect listing of this material has far-reaching effects. The mislabeling of this chemical has the potential to cost the can manufacturing industry hundreds of millions of dollars and threatens jobs across the country. In my district alone over 450 citizens hold jobs in the can industry. Last week I and 22 of my colleagues introduced a commonsense piece of legislation that will remedy this situation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3849. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation, with 22 bipartisan colleagues, that would remedy a regulatory situation that I believe mistakenly identifies and regulates a chemical used in the can manufacturing process as hazardous. The mislabeling of this chemical seems technical on its face, but this technicality has the potential to cost the can manufacturing industry hundreds of millions of dollars and threatens the job of can workers. It is up to Congress to take corrective action. The chemical (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether--EGBE) is listed on the EPA's list of Hazardous Air Pollutants[HAP's] as established under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. While most chemicals are listed separately, Congress created a situation in which whole families of some chemicals are listed as pollutants under a ``unique chemical substances'' category, even when certain members of the families are not hazardous when used in a specific manufacturing process. This is the case with EGBE when used as a can coating. I am not arguing that we should back away from our regulation of known hazardous air pollutants. Those elements are, and should continue to be, regulated under HAP's. EGBE, however, is not a hazardous air pollutant. It was included on the HAP's list because it belongs to a large family of widely-varying ``unique chemical substances'' known as glycol ethers. This legislation simply stipulates that the glycol ether category does not include EGBE when used as part of the can manufacturing process. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, inclusion on the EPA's list of HAPs triggers a series of regulations often requiring the installation of expensive emissions control equipment. That is the case with the listing of EGBE as a hazardous air pollutant. Unless corrected, this listing will force the installation of emissions control equipment at each can manufacturing facility, at a cost of compliance estimated to be about $4 million per plant. Nationally, the cost may reach a quarter of billion dollars for all plants to comply. That financial burden will likely mean an increase in the cost of cans, lower productivity, an international trade disadvantage, and most importantly, potential job losses for the thousands of workers in these plants. I am proud to represent the 467 employees at the American National Can Co. beverage can plant in Winston-Salem and the Reynolds Metals Co. beverage can plant in Reidsville. That may not sound like a large number of workers to many of you, but they are important to me and to the economic vitality of my district. And I am not alone in this body. There are can manufacturing facilities in 34 States and in more than 180 districts across the Nation. These are some 45,000 highly paid, skilled workers in these plants. They should not be placed at risk of job loss because of what I believe is a technical error Congress helped to create and Congress must correct. We need to protect the environment. We will continue to do so. Substances that are legitimately classified as hazardous air pollutants will continue to be regulated by their listing as a Hazardous Air Pollutant under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. When we find, however, that broad policy decisions result in specific regulatory mistakes, then we should fix what we broke. That is precisely what this legislation does. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that EGBE should not be considered a hazardous air pollutant when used in the can manufacturing process. The Evironmental Protection Agency itself has consistently told the industry that they believe the can industry's use of EGBE is not harmful to the stratosphere and does not harm the environment. The EPA, however, does not have a process for delisting a single circumstance like this under the Clean Air Act amendments. They have worked with the industry, but may not be able to remedy this situation administratively. Delisting must, therefore, be achieved through the legislative process. By approving this legislation, we can help maintain the vitality of the industry and save jobs without jeopardizing the integrity of our environmental laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in making this correction to the clean air amendments of 1990.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for yielding, and I also thank him and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for their leadership on this bill. This bill seeks to protect public safety by improving the outdated law that regulates tap water. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill, it is a bill my colleagues should support. The safe drinking water bill is well negotiated, bipartisan agreement grounded in three vital principles: First, targeting the most dangerous contaminants in our tap water; second, providing greater resources to small water treatment plants; and third, making sure consumers know more about the tap water that they use more so than ever before. I want to personally thank those people in North Carolina who had faith in this process. I want to thank key individuals in North Carolina: Linda Sewall and Rick Durham from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources for their help and their understanding as we went through the process; and I want to thank Terry Henderson in North Carolina, who heads up the North Carolina League of Municipalities for his support. I urge my colleagues' support for the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is the right thing.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for an hour and a half, maybe a little bit longer. Thank goodness we have a time frame on it. I have waited for the merits of why this bill, a bill that puts a gag order on extension agents in this country, is good. I have heard about smoking and I have heard about this and I have heard about that, and now we have heard about PAC money and we have heard about influence. We still have not heard any merits on why extension agent gag is an appropriate method. In fact, tobacco is an attractive target these days. The administration is on it. We have got the Durbin-Waxman two shoe again. It is consistent. In due respect to them, they are consistent. They continue to do it. Why do they do it? For the same reason my colleague from Texas was just up here. Because it is profitable for them. Because they do not talk about the money they raise from the people that fight this industry day in and day out. Congress has the jurisdiction on what the legal status of it is. If the American people want it changed, I will assure my colleagues they are a much more powerful lobby than is any single interest group here in Washington or the whole interest groups here in Washington combined. We give the American people the wrong impression when we say that they do not have a voice here. Well, they do have a voice in the Fifth District of North Carolina and they elected me to be here. They elected me to protect their livelihood. The fact is that this amendment is not about tobacco and it is not about smoking. This is about killing the livelihoods of families. It is about destroying communities throughout the South because we will drive farmers out of business. My colleagues are offering to kill programs from which tobacco farmers in my district benefit, while they are proposing to maintain, as my other colleagues have mentioned, their own programs. I would say this to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and I am sorry she is not here, if she believes that doing away with the extension agents for tobacco is in fact that profitable, then why does she not propose that we do away with extension agents, period? It is very simple. It is because the assault here is tobacco. It is under assault under the auspices of Federal spending. There is not a crop in this country that has done more to be self-sufficient than has tobacco. They have reached out every time that this body has suggested that in fact the Federal Government had too great a share and they have cleaned it up. They have a no net cost program for the stabilization side of it. And yes, there is some Federal money that is there for extension agents to talk to farmers, to help them move from a one-crop farm to a multi-crop farm. As a matter of fact, North Carolina used to be a one- crop State. Today we are the third most diverse State in this country behind California and Texas. Why? Because extension agents have helped us to make that transition. Without them, our farmers are dead, and you can bet on it. It is unbelievable to think that we would in fact sit here and pass a law that would say to extension agents, ``You can talk to a farmer about the azalea bushes and when to clip them, about the grass and how to make it green, you can talk about cotton and pigs and everything else, but you can't talk about tobacco.'' How insane we would be to even consider something like this. As a matter of fact, if I were a farmer in Illinois today, as my deal colleague Mr. Ewing said, I would be scared to death of what the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Durbin may do. The reality is that, as in the past, this amendment amounts to plain discrimination against our farmers who depend on tobacco to put food on their tables. In fact, earlier, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] said, look at the kids visiting us today. My only regret at that time, I was sorry that the children of tobacco farmers were not here today, because they are just as important. Are their lives not as important for us to protect as everybody's in this country? We will solve the smoking issue. We will do it responsibly. We will debate the issue. But we do not do it by disguising an attack on the industry and by destroying people who in fact are just plain farmers. Mr. Chairman, if Congress were to say today that tobacco could not be grown anymore, it would take at least 3 growing seasons to prime soil for new crops, notwithstanding the fact that most tobacco farmers have neither the acreage or the proper soil to prosper with different crops. As a matter of fact, the average tobacco farm in my district is 3 acres. Three acres is not enough to even take a good-sized tractor and get it going before you have got to turn it around. Needless to say, they do not have the up-front capital to start raising chickens or hogs. Given the same circumstances, I am sure that most other farmers would face a similar situation. But Congressman Durbin would eliminate crop insurance for tobacco. He may not like tobacco, but it is downright cruel to pull the rug out from under farmers whose crops fall victim to such plagues as blue mold which has wiped out hundreds of acres of burley tobacco. Will we not cause a nightmare for extension agents when they cannot control disease in one crop and all of a sudden it begins to affect others? Will we not do a terrible thing to our environment in this country if we do not have agricultural agents who are working with farmers as it relates to pesticides and to other things that they use on their crops, and farmers do it out of ignorance versus out of education? Do we not do an injustice by not allowing the latest in research and technology to drive what they do? How can it be good policy to put agricultural extension agents under a gag order? Good policy would be to control disease, to monitor pesticide usage, to protect workers and the environment. The Durbin amendment is bad legislation. It threatens the environment, it threatens the livelihood of thousands of families, and it threatens American jobs. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to defeat the Durbin amendment. I am here to defeat the Durbin amendment for one primary reason, because it is what is right.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day, a day when millions of Americans will thank their fathers for the special role they play in all our lives--for being a protector and a provider, for being a counselor, a mentor and a friend. On this morning, I would like to take a few moments to share with my colleagues the story of a gifted doctor, a trusted teacher and most importantly a wonderful father, the story of Dr. Eugene Rossitch, Jr. On November 18, 1994, Gene Rossitch drowned off a Florida beach while successfully saving his young son. I would like to focus this morning, however, on the inspirational life of Gene Rossitch, who accomplished so much in his 35 years with us. On February 18, 1959, in Guines, Cuba, Eugene and Carmen Rossitch were blessed by the birth of their first child, Gene Rossitch, Jr. In 1962, when little Gene was 3 years old, his parents left Cuba with only one suitcase and their wedding picture and moved the family to the United States. The Rossitches settled in my hometown of Winston-Salem, NC, where they raised Gene and his four younger brothers. With the support and guidance of a loving and successful family, Gene began to compile a record of extraordinary academic achievement that marked his entire life. While in high school, Gene was the State president of the North Carolina National Honor Society before graduating first in his class from Bishop McGuiness High School in Winston-Salem. Gene then attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a Morehead Scholar. He graduated from UNC Phi Beta Kappa and then pursued his medical studies at the Duke University School of Medicine. While at Duke, Gene was awarded the John H. Watson, Jr., Medical Fellowship and was inducted into the Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society. Following his internship at the Duke University Medical Center, Gene began his residency in neurological surgery at Duke, which included 2 years as a research fellow in neurosurgery at Brigham and Women's and Children's Hospitals. During that time, Gene became the first recipient of the Cushing History of Medicine Fellowship. And shortly thereafter, he completed a clinical fellowship in spinal surgery at Duke. Gene's remarkable career then led him back to Massachusetts, where he was appointed assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and attending neurosurgeon at the Brigham and Women's and Children's Hospitals in 1992. Gene was the spinal surgery specialist at both hospitals. Dr. Gene Rossitch's service was not limited to the operating room. Gene served on the premedical advisory board of the Currier House at Harvard University, on the Greater Boston Spinal Cord Injury Planning Counsel, and on the emergency medical services task force on spinal cord injury. Gene was also very active in national neurosurgery organizations. For example, he was chairman of the program evaluation committee for the 1994 Congress of Neurological Surgeons Annual Meeting and he had major roles in several other national meetings. Dr. Gene Rossitch's commitment to finding new ways to treat spinal injury patients can be found in the 61 original scientific journal publications he either authored or coauthored. Gene was also the coeditor of three books. Two dealt with the history of neurosurgery and the third, ``A Handbook of Neurosurgery for House Officers and Medical Students.'' demonstrates Gene's desire to share his vast knowledge with his fellow surgeons of how to treat spinal cord injuries. While at the Brigham and Women's and Children's Hospitals, Dr. Rossitch supervised the research work of a number of medical students, residents and visiting research fellows. Gene also served as a preceptor for the Introduction to Clinical Medicine Course at the Harvard Medical School. I have never encountered a more impressive record of service and achievement than that of Dr. Gene Rossitch, Jr. He was recognized by his patients and by those in his field as a gifted and gentle surgeon and caregiver, as an innovative researcher, and as a trusted mentor and teacher of spinal cord injury medicine. Dr. Gene Rossitch's career is a testament to this young man's dedication to his studies, his sincere concern for his fellow man, and to a willingness to fully utilize the gifts that God bestowed upon him. But as a friend of the Rossitches, I know that the true center of Gene's remarkable life was his family. Gene met his wife Cindy while attending the Duke University School of Medicine and was blessed with three children: Eugene III, Katharine, and Elizabeth. And despite the demands of his clinical schedule, Gene always found time to spend with his family and could be seen on weekends at Chuck E. Cheese, art galleries, and ice cream parlors with his wife and children. Perhaps the best way to look at how special a person Gene was is to see him through the eyes of the mother of one of his patients. The day before Gene left for Florida with his family for their vacation, he performed a 7-hour operation repairing a congenital abnormality in the neck of Michael O'Loughlin, a 12-year-old boy. The night before Mike's surgery, the boy was in terrible pain and Mrs. O'Loughlin asked Gene whether they were doing the right thing by operating. Mrs. O'Loughlin remembers asking Dr. Rossitch whether he would perform the operation if Mike were his own son. Gene told here, ``Absolutely, without question.'' Mrs. O'Loughlin tells how Gene insisted that the operation be done at Brigham and Women's Hospital because he preferred their operating room. And when the hospital refused to take Mike because he was underage and underweight, Gene went before the hospital board to get permission. The day of the operation, the procedure took much longer than the family expected. But at 7 o'clock, Gene Rossitch came out to tell them everything had gone perfectly. Gene also told the family that the x rays had not shown how serious the problem had been and how glad he was that he had performed the operation before leaving on vacation. Mrs. O'Loughlin says, ``I absolutely believe Gene Rossitch saved Mike's life.'' A few days later, Gene's last heroic act was to save his own son from drowning in choppy ocean waters near Ft. Lauderdale. I find Gene's last, heroic act a fitting one because Gene Rossitch's lifwork had been saving the lives of others. And since his death, his colleagues have seen fit to honor the life and work of Gene Rossitch. The Humane Society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has honored Gene with their silver medal and has donated $2,500 toward a children's fund named in honor of Dr. Rossitch that has been established at Brigham and Children's Hospital. On June 27, there will be a dedication of the Eugene Rossitch, Jr., M.D. Residents' Library at the Brigham and Children's Hospital in Boston, MA. And finally, on November 22, the Duke Medical Alumni Association will honor Gene Rossitch by posthumously awarding him its Humanitarian Award. Literally thousands of people enjoy more fulfilling lives because they were touched by the life of Gene Rossitch. And on this Father's Day, I will join Gene's family, his colleagues, his patients, and his community in thanking God that I was fortunate enough to come into contact with the remarkable life of Dr. Gene Rossitch, Jr.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the interesting thing here is that we are convicted to make sure that this legislation passes and gets a Presidential signature. Why? It is because we have seen the human face that we need to apply to the problem. Bureaucracy never tends to see the human face. I think for many people who listen tonight, they may wonder, you are Members of Congress. What do you know about reforming the FDA? The number of hearings in oversight and investigation, and I would say to my colleague, Jim you were there, the number of hours that we spent once we had the first draft of this legislation, I believe 17 hours in 2 days, where we brought people in from all over the country who could lend their expertise to the language and to the intent, and to assure the efficacy and the safety, it all exists in this one package. For once, we have seen the process work exactly like it is supposed to. But to an agency that I continue to hear the same remarks that I hear from other agencies, ``We are making changes. Let it work. Let it happen. It will fix itself,'' it only reminds me of a statement that a gentleman made several years ago, that a fool is one that believes you can continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. In fact, we have to change culturally and fundamentally what we do if we want to expect a different result. I carry in my voting card wallet a statement that I think is very appropriate, that is printed at the Jefferson Memorial. I will read it just very briefly. It is Jefferson's words: ``I am not an advocate of frequent change in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.'' Mr. Speaker, tonight we are keeping pace with the times.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] and thank him for his leadership, as I do the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and I think the gentleman raises a good question. It is 9:15 at night. Why are we here? We are here tonight, and we have put months of work into hearings and into meetings with patient coalitions and with hospitals and with doctors about the horror stories at FDA, and I am here tonight to say that we also heard some successes with FDA. We have an agency in the Food and Drug Administration that needs to be here. It has a purpose. But we have also seen the instances where the Food and Drug Administration has no human face, and what we have seen is, in fact, the human faces. I never will forget, Jim, when I got to Washington just a year and a half ago; it seems like eternity now. In one of the first hearings I ran into a product called the censor pad, and I am sorry Joe Barton is not here because Joe usually talks about it; I am the one that carries it around. And the reason I carry it around with me: It probably was the best example since I have been here about the failure of bureaucracy, the fact that bureaucracy cannot make decisions that apply common sense to something. This product was designed to aid women with the examination of a breast for possible cancer. It increases the sensitivity over soap and water because it is plastic with some silicon in the middle, and it allows a woman at any time of the day to apply this pad and to begin an exam. If this pad were to find breast cancer in 1 woman, then I feel that it is our responsibility to have it on the market because it is nonintrusive, it cannot hurt a person, it is not there to replace a mammogram or any other exam that is done in a medical office. It is there to encourage a woman any time of the day or night to check herself. This is the type of common sense thing that I think we ought to make sure is approved by the FDA. Now this was classified as a medical device under the same category as a pacemaker because there was no prior product like it, and the reality is that this has been at the Food and Drug Administration now for 11 years. The person who invented this product won the inventor of the year award in medical devices, and the year after that the FDA sued him. It is an incredible story about the abuses that happen in bureaucracy. But we are here to talk about positives tonight, we are here to talk about what we can do by this Congress taking a responsible look at the problems that we have at the Food and Drug Administration using the talents and creativity of people there that are the best in the country, and then, looking at the private sector in America where we have more talented people and saying how can we plug them into this process. How can we do it while assuring safety and efficacy to all the American people for the drugs and pharmaceuticals and medical devices that they have become so accustomed to that safety? The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] talked about tonight third party review. Think of the teaching hospitals that we have in this country who do clinical trials today, who do drug research, who come up with new compounds that might be the breakthrough for cancer or for diabetes; they are at our disposal to try to use them not only in the clinical process, but in the overall overseeing of the clinical trial and maybe with the applications. There is an option that we look at. It is not that we have to do it. It is that we have a responsibility to explore any option that exists that might make it better because in fact what we hope is that we can reach new efficiencies while maintaining safety and efficacy. As a matter of fact, the first thing, Jim, we changed, I think, was the mission statement. The mission statement was changed to say that the FDA should promote and protect, to promote, to move forward, to advance and to protect the integrity of the safety system that Americans had come to know. In fact, what we want to do is we want to open up the communication of what has been a very closed agency, one that communicates freely with the applicants of pharmaceuticals and devices, one that shares with the companies where they are in the process, one that solicits information from companies that companies are willing to supply because it is their intent to speed up the process. I think we alluded to the fact earlier tonight that right now it takes 14.8 years to approve a new pharmaceutical in this country. In fact, in the 1960's, in 1963, it was 8.1 years. Today it is $350 million. Then it was about $70 million. If Americans wonder why drugs that hit the marketplace that are new are so expensive, all they have to do is look at the investment that pharmaceutical companies have to make in research and development and the approval time to realize why a new prescription is a hundred dollars. Well, nobody wants to make it $30 worse than we do, and if we can reach that through new efficiencies, we have a responsibility, as Members of Congress, to try to explore how in fact we can do that with the help of the FDA. In fact, one of the single most important things of the FDA reform legislation is that we require the Food and Drug Administration to do an annual report to Congress, tell us how many drugs have we had applications for, how many have we approved. Is it unreasonable to believe that the American people deserve some type of accountability for the approval process? I think it is very much within the responsibility of Congress, as we represent people all across this country, to say to every agency in the Federal Government you have accountability to the people through us. In fact, one of the most contentious parts of the bill deals with the dissemination of information. 70 percent of all the cancer treatment today is the off-label use of an approved drug. Doctors find that there is a drug that is already on the marketplace that works well for a certain disease, and they choose to use that drug to treat that particular problem. But in fact pharmaceutical companies cannot take their experience, their successes where they might write about them in professional medical journals and duplicate those and send them to other doctors. They can only make a copy and send it to a doctor when a doctor requests that information. Well, 70 percent of my district is rural. My doctors are doing everything they can to provide primary care to their population. They do not have time to read medical journals. This would be such a tremendous aid to them, to have the ability for peer review articles to be replicated and sent to them. Think of the valuable information that one can find in peer review articles.

Mr. BURR. It is not only against the law, but to do it he would have to rely, we would have to rely, on our doctor who might not have read it to request it. What an insane way to go through the process. And I think the thing that is scary and should be scary for the American people is that as this off-label use is tried more frequently, a doctor might determine that the dosage is very crucial, and if other doctors are going to use that off-label use or that pharmaceutical for an off-label use, should they not have the latest information about the dosage to use and the frequency of usage, where today again that is information that pharmaceutical companies can only disseminate when a physician requests it, not when there is a peer review article that states this new information that might have been found. So in fact there are many areas, many parts of this legislation, that are crucial to the health of the American people. America has the best health care system in the world. It is unconscionable for Americans to have anything less than superior access to lifesaving drugs. I believe that by safely streamlining the drug approval process it will not only help families by lowering drug prices and keeping high paying jobs here in America, but give terminally ill patients access to lifesaving treatments. FDA reform is not radical, it is responsible. It is not senseless, it is safe. America's health industry and patients are chained to an FDA process that provides no flexibility, has no common sense and has no human face. The FDA reform legislation will remove these chains and ensure safety in a process structured to more effectively and efficiently approve drugs. In fact, as people have told stories tonight, Jim, about patients in their own districts, I have got several, too, several patients who are now being treated by alternative methods. Why are they doing that? Because it is their choice. They have determined that that choice that exists is the best choice for them, and right now we are slowly moving to a situation, if we are not there already, where the Government will tell us no, you cannot do that. Well, when these people have a choice between nothing and nothing, do we not have a moral responsibility as Members of Congress to present them with an option? I think we do, and that is why I am proud to be here tonight. I am proud to be a sponsor of 3199, I am proud to say that this is a bill Jon Fox started legislation long before I did, and this has incorporated much of Jon's it has incorporated the thoughts of hundreds of people around this country and in this town, but more importantly, it is a bill that we can all stand here tonight and say that we are proud that it has bipartisan support, that Democrats and Republicans believe very strongly in the changes that we propose to make. Why? Because we have put politics aside and we tried to put human health in the forefront. Well, we will succeed to do that. We will succeed by marking up this legislation in a bipartisan way, coming to this very House floor and debating with our critics the importance of it, and we will win because we are right. 2130

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend from California that I accept my fig lead before I speak, knowing that I am going to get one, and saying proudly that I am not accepting it to hide behind. I do not hide behind anything I have done while I have been here that I think is in fact right, and in fact I have done what I think voters sent me here to do. That is to try to strike the right balance. But I rise today in support of H.R. 2024. This legislation, passed out of the Committee on Commerce on a bipartisan basis, will promote recycling of used batteries that currently end up in landfills and incinerators. Innocently, consumers like myself dispose of batteries that leak mercury and cadmium into the groundwater and cause toxic air emissions when incinerated. Today, batteries account for 68 percent of the cadmium in landfills and 85 percent of the mercury. This possible hazard is not acceptable, and I, for one, will appreciate the opportunity to dispose of my batteries in an environmentally sound manner. With passage of H.R. 2024, consumers will be able to walk into any store that sells batteries and leave them for recycling. Consumers will be able to read right on the label, through uniformed labeling, that the battery they have purchased is recyclable. All retailers have to do is to set up battery recycling receptacles. Furthermore, H.R. 2024 allows the battery industry to launch a voluntary recycling program which will promote the shipments of used batteries to a central recycling center directly from the retailer. This is perfect common-sense environmental legislation. H.R. 2024 does not create an expensive, out-of-control Government program. The shipments of batteries to the recycling center will be prepaid for by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corp., which is made up of nearly every one of the battery manufacturers and consumer industry interests. I cannot imagine a more convenient process. This bill will accomplish removing batteries related mercury and cadmium from the waste stream, which means a healthier safer environment for all. This is common sense, Mr. Speaker, commonsense legislation that we should enact today on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, the United States has the best health care system in the world. It is unthinkable for Americans to have anything less than superior access to lifesaving drugs. By safety streamlining the drug approval process we can not only help families and seniors by lowering drug prices and keeping high paying jobs on American soil, but we will give terminally ill patients access to lifesaving treatments. Yesterday patients from across this country came to Washington and told us their hard stories about being denied access to drugs that may, in fact, save their lives. It is these courageous people that inspire us to reform the Food and Drug Administration. America's health care industry and patients are chained to a FDA process that provides no flexibility, no common sense, and has no human face. The average time for the drug approval in this country is a whopping 13 to 15 years. For terminally ill patients with no hope that timeable simply will not do. I urge my colleagues to watch FDA reform as it comes to this House floor later this month.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, February 6 marked the 240th birthday of Aaron Burr, who was born in 1756. Aaron Burr had no direct descendants, but many of us in the Burr family are collaterally related. And during this year marking Aaron Burr's 240th birthday, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some of the positive contributions Aaron Burr made to our great Nation. Aaron Burr was a colonel in the Revolutionary War and was the third Vice President of the United States. He was born in Newark, NJ, and graduated from Princeton with the highest academic record yet achieved. His father, Rev. Aaron Burr, Sr., and grandfather, Rev. Jonathan Edwards, were the second and third presidents of Princeton. Aaron Burr participated in the 600 mile winter march on the fort at Quebec as an aide to General Montgomery. During the assault, Montgomery was mortally wounded and Burr attempted to carry the man to safety. Burr also served on Gen. George Washington's staff and spent the winter of 1778 at Valley Forge. Assignment took him to the Hudson Valley and several skirmishes with the enemy. He distinguished himself in New Jersey at the Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778. Following the Revolutionary War, Aaron Burr practiced law in New York City and pursued an interest in politics. After serving in the New York State Legislature and the U.S. Senate, he ran on the Republican ticket for the Presidency with Thomas Jefferson. While it was intended that Jefferson would be President and Burr Vice President, the Electoral College's initial vote resulted in a tie vote between the two men. The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives, which eventually elected Jefferson as President and Burr as his Vice President. Aaron Burr's finest accomplishment during his tenure as Vice President occurred during the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase. In 1804, Jefferson was incensed at the Federalist-dominated judiciary. He feared that it would nullify an act of Congress by declaring the act unconstitutional and thereby subverting the will of the people. As Vice President, Aaron Burr presided over the impeachment trial that began on February 4, 1805, with the Jeffersonians hoping that Burr would lean their way. Aaron Burr, however, acted impartially and Chase was acquitted on all counts. The newspapers of both parties agreed that although the trial began as a political inquest, it ended as a memorable example of judicial procedure at its best. One of the papers reported that Burr conducted the trial ``with the dignity and impartiality of an angel, but with the rigor of the devil.'' I would like to thank the Aaron Burr Association, which is dedicated to presenting a more balanced view of our third Vice President, for their assistance in providing research for this account of Aaron Burr's contributions to our young Nation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, this is a health care issue, it is not a nursing issue. I do not think it is outdated to supply adequate care to Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] who has worked so hard on the immigration bill.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just wish the gentlewoman had an opportunity to go to rural North Carolina and see the shortages Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Rush].

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to allow a 6 month extension of the H-1A nonimmigrant nurse program which expired in September. Our country's nursing homes and senior health care providers will face a dire situation unless we act now to temporarily reauthorize the program. It allows health care facilities to bring foreign registered nurses into the country on a temporary basis. These nurses are not taking American jobs, because they fill needed positions in rural areas where there is a shortage of American nurses. These shortages continue, despite fiscal year 1995 and 1996 appropriations of $78 million each year for the National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Program to recruit American nurses for these rural areas. Mr. Chairman, we are asking for a six month extension. During this time the concerned committees will have the opportunity to examine the program and develop a long-term solution to the shortage of qualified nurses in rural America. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, let me say, as we started this debate, that the American Hospital Association has just called in support of this amendment, as well as the American Health Care Association. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the fine efforts of the North Carolina Electronics and Information Technologies [NCEITA] to play a constructive role in the debate over telecommunications reform this year. NCEITA was formed in 1993 as the primary association representing North Carolina's high-technology companies. Rapid growth in our State's electronics and information industries has made it the second largest employer in North Carolina, accounting for more than 145,000 jobs. North Carolina, with its Research Triangle Park, the Nation's oldest and largest research park, has become one of the Nation's premier locations for firms in electronics, telecommunications, computer systems, and other high-technology fields. As Congress considered the sweeping rewrite of our communications laws this year, NCEITA encouraged policymakers to take a close look at North Carolina's commitment to build a fully interactive fiber-optic network throughout the State and the advanced telecommunications capabilities available to its citizens. At the end of 1994, over 40,000 sheath miles of fiber-optic cable had been deployed throughout our State, providing the backbone for date transmission. Currently, over 97 percent of North Carolina businesses have access to digital switching. This interactive broadband network allows students to participate in classroom debates taking place on the other side of the State or browse through the library collections at distant universities. Cardiac specialists in Chapel Hill can now examine video images of the beating heart of an elderly woman in her doctor's office in the mountains of Hendersonville, NC. Using North Carolina as a model of the benefits of advanced telecommunications capabilities, NCEITA urged legislators to promote the deployment of advanced telecommunications networks nationwide to enable all Americans to originate and receive affordable, high-quality voice, data, image, graphic, and video telecommunications services. NCEITA emphasized deregulation and competition in the local telephone exchange as the means toward spurring investment in these advanced broadband networks. As a result of their efforts on the legislative front, Congress chose to include a provision authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to encourage the timely deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities, if necessary, through policies of pricing regulation, regulatory forbearance and promoting competition in the local telephone exchange. Quite simply, this will enable Americans to communicate better tomorrow than they can today. For that, NCEITA member companies--particularly Broad Band Technologies, Siecor, Nortel, and General Instruments--deserve special recognition.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telecommunications bill. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleagues, particularly Chairman Bliley, the ranking member, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields, Mr. Markey, as well as Chairman Hyde, on this historic reform of our Nation's telecommunications laws. Passage of this landmark bill will foster job growth, product innovation, consumer savings, and economic development across all sectors of our economy. The legislation's removal of barriers to competition in the telephone, cable, and broadcast industries will open markets and increase competition in the communications industry that will better prepare our Nation to enter the new millennium. I am pleased that the conferees have included in their final report a provision I sponsored in H.R. 1555 that I believe embodies the deregulatory intent of this legislation--a provision which adjusts one piece of a larger regulatory barrier that has been ignored by regulators since its inception. Since 1981, Bell operating companies have been prohibited from jointly marketing their local telephone service and cellular services due to an FCC rule requiring the establishment of an RBOC cellular separate subsidiary. This rule was originally intended to apply to the predivestiture AT&T when the Commission determined that AT&T and one other company would be granted the two cellular licenses in each market. During the breakup of the old Bell system, AT&T transferred its cellular licenses to its newly established offspring, the regional Bell operating companies. Because the Commission was in the process of overseeing the breakup of the world's largest corporation, the FCC understandably had precious little time to worry with establishing new rules for RBOC participation in the then nascent cellular business. Consequently, the Commission determined that RBOC cellular operations would be conducted under the same rules that had been developed for AT&T, and that the Commission would review the matter in 2 years. Given the circumstances, such a decisions seems understandable. What is not understandable, however, is what has happened in the meantime--nothing. For 14 years the FCC has ignored its commitment to review the necessity of its RBOC cellular separate subsidiary rule. While cellular exploded into a dynamic, competitive industry, the FCC took no action. In fact, when the Commission established the rules for a new wireless service, PCS [Personal Communications Service]--designed to compete with cellular, the FCC determined that RBOC's would not be required to establish separate subsidiaries for their new PCS wireless services. Yet, inexplicably, the Commission said there was not enough information on the record to warrant removal of the RBOC cellular separate subsidiary rule. It is difficult to imagine how the FCC could acquire enough information to establish a new set of wireless competitors [PCS] to cellular, determine separate subsidiaries would not be required for RBOC PCS services, and still state there was not enough information to justify removal of the cellular separate subsidiary rule. Understandably, the companies impacted by this decision found it difficult to understand and so has the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In a ruling issued November 9th, the Appeals Court found the FCC's PCS rulemaking decision on the cellular separate subsidiary rule to be arbitrary and capricious stating: Instead, the FCC simply stated that the record in the Personal Communications Service Rulemaking proceedings was insufficient to determine whether to eliminate the structural separation requirement. We believe this to be arbitrary and capricious given the somewhat contradictory findings of the FCC during the course of the Personal Communications Service rulemaking and related proceedings. If Personal Communications Service and Cellular are sufficiently similar to warrant the Cellular eligibility restrictions and are expected to compete for customers on price, quality, and services, what difference between the two services justifies keeping the structural separation rule intact for Bell Cellular providers? The court remanded to the Commission for further proceedings its decision on this rule. Such action normally would be encouraging for the companies involved. Unfortunately, regulators like regulation. More than 1 month after the sixth circuit's ruling ``that the time is now for the FCC to reconsider whether to rescind the structural separation requirement'' the Commission has taken no action, notwithstanding the court's belief that ``time is of the essence on this issue.'' It simply makes no sense to require Bell cellular operations to remain in separate subsidiaries--and prohibited from joint marketing opportunities--when the Commission has determined that no such requirements are necessary for Bell PCS operations. The appeals court acknowledged this fact stating: BellSouth's strongest argument is perhaps that the factual predicate which justified the structural separation requirement is no longer valid. BellSouth points out that the FCC believes that the safeguards such as mandatory interconnection enforceable by individual complaint process suffice to combat possible discrimination and cross- subsidization in the Personal Communications Service industry. BellSouth claims that this removes any justification retention of the structural separation requirement for Cellular licenses, and that the FCC has arbitrarily failed to remove restrictions . . . We agree with BellSouth that the time is now for the FCC to reconsider whether to rescind the structural separation requirement . . . after fourteen years, further delay in determining whether to rescind the structural separation requirement severely penalizes the Bell Companies at a time when the wireless communications industry is exploding and changing almost daily. The disparate treatment afforded the Bell Companies impacts on their ability to compete in the ever-evolving wireless communications marketplace. I am glad this legislation takes the first, important step toward restoring parity in this area by allowing Bell operating companies to jointly market their cellular and local services. It is my hope, that after 14 years and a clear rebuke from the court, the FCC will take the next step and review its cellular separate subsidiary rule. Mr. Speaker, once again I congratulate the committee chairman and the subcommittee chairman on producing this historic legislation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring two outstanding Americans and fellow North Carolinians. Throughout their lives, Ruth and Billy Graham have exemplified the highest goals our country holds dear, and as a result, they have left a lasting impression not only on the people they touch individually, but on our Nation as a whole. Most people first encountered Rev. Graham through his many crusades. Through this vehicle, he has reached over 100 million people in person and over 2 billion people throughout the world in his television audiences spreading his message of hope. Rev. Graham's achievements, however, go much deeper than his accomplishments as a religious leader. He and his wife are also leaders in promoting education, charity, and the importance of family. They were the driving force in creating the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Health Center at Memorial Mission Hospital in Asheville, NC. This facility provides comfort and care to the most helpless members of society--our children. And, finally, Rev. and Mrs. Graham have served us as leaders--leaders by example. If we would all dedicate ourselves to just a fraction of the unselfish endeavors of these two people, the world would be a much better place. Mr. Speaker, in this Olympic year, when we honor our best athletes with gold medals for achievements on the field, it is fitting that we honor these two outstanding individuals with a gold medal for their outstanding achievements in a much more difficult arena--life. So, for myself, my colleagues in this House, and for our Nation, I say thank you, Ruth and Billy Graham.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the Clinton budget plan, particularly with regard to health care rationing through micromanagement by HCFA. The President's Medicaid plan is a per capita cap plan which maintains all of the mandates, regulations, and obstacles to flexibility just as they are, while limiting the amount of money the States will receive. In a nutshell, the President is placing dollar figures on the value of health care for poor Americans, and forcing the States to use the cookie cutter method once again to classify who is Medicaid eligible. Poor children get the least and poor elderly get the most, regardless of their individual circumstances. Not only does this open the door to fraud and abuse via misclassification, it hog-ties the States and actually creates a much more difficult situation than the horrendous circumstances that States currently face. Worst of all, the President's plan will enable HCFA to create a virtual health care police state in every State in the country to track down those who would misclassify beneficiaries. HCFA will dispatch dozens of bureaucrats to detect such practices. This is the worst possible solution for a program which already faces way too many problems. The President's plan is unfair, unworkable, indefensible, and is doomed to failure. The Republican plan, on the other hand, frees States to enact innovative solutions to the difficult situations they face, utilizing the resources that are available. Mr. Speaker, we want to give States the ability to innovate with regard to providing health care for poor Americans, not place the States in a regulatory strait jacket with no room to move.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also agree that this has been a successful plan. It is one we need to continue to waive in this particular case. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1878. The Dayton area health plan is a Medicaid managed care demonstration project in Dayton, OH. On December 31 of this year, the Medicaid waiver under which the plan currently operates will expire. H.R. 1878 extends for 4 years the waiver of the 75/25 percent enrollment mix which requires HMO's serving public recipients to attract 25 percent of their customers from the commercial market. Since this program has been successful as a HCFA-approved Medicaid reform initiative, Congress has waived the enrollment mix twice in the past. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office has also estimated that the Dayton program saves taxpayers approximately $1 million per year. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. 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. 1878, the bill just passed.