Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Those pertinent to the transportation and handling of oil have been [[Page H 9757]] looked at as it relates to this bill, and disposal, excuse me.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would make this comment to my colleague, that in my 9 short months here in Washington, I have learned that sometimes a little nudge is what is needed to get the process started. I hope this nudge of Corrections Day will enable us to eliminate those things that to the American people are common sense, that we should change and clarify. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].

Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will yield further, three committees have looked at this issue.

Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is asking me for statutory jurisdiction of each of these committees of which I am not a member. I would suggest it does affect the Oil Pollution Act, which we are here to address, and certainly it does make common sense for us to address a differentiation between vegetable oils and petroleum-based products.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk may be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 436, the bill just passed.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation along with a bipartisan group of my colleagues. We are at an important moment in the struggle for freedom for the Cuban people. It is a well-known fact that the Cuban economy is in complete disarray. In order to prop up his failing regime, Castro has attempted to attract foreign investors to the country so that he may obtain more hard currency for his benefit, I repeat his benefit. Let us not pretend that the people of Cuba will benefit from these investments. Have no doubt, the capital that comes with foreign investment is for the benefit of Castro and his regime, not the people of Cuba. To those who will say that Castro is liberalizing his political and economic policies, this is simply untrue. There is no indication that elections held in Cuba are anything more than a rubber stamp of his corrupt regime and there simply are not real economic reforms occurring there. Castro will continue to control the Cuban economy and the Cuban people because he and his regime control all of the money received from foreign investments. To those who argue that we must end the embargo because it has not worked in 35 years, I would tell you that the embargo has worked best in the last few years due to the end of subsidies from the Soviet Union. The embargo is working and should be tightened, as this bill seeks to do, so the end of the Castro regime comes as soon as possible. Finally, I support the provisions of this bill that provide American citizens a right of action in a U.S. court of law to ensure that property confiscated from them is not sold for the benefit of the Castro regime. The only way to end Castro's dictatorship is to end his access to foreign capital. I support these provisions as well as those that provide for a smooth transition to democracy and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill with a ``yes'' vote on final passage.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor and support House Concurrent Resolution 42, a measure to end the longstanding dispute regarding Cyprus. Over 20 years ago, the Turkish army invaded the island of Cyprus, seizing over 30 percent of the island's land and approximately 70 percent of the island's wealth. This action caused more than 200,000 Cypriots to be driven from their homes and made them refugees in their own country. Today, Turkey continues to maintain a force of over 35,000 troops on the island of Cyprus. Although this force was only supposed to stay to protect the Turkish-Cypriot minority for a short time, we are now beginning the third decade of Turkish occupation. This has led some observers to call this area one of the most highly militarized areas of the world. Last year, in an effort to break this deadlock, Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides offered to totally demilitarize the island by dismantling his army with the understanding the Turkish army would withdraw and work toward an agreement to unify the island and bring about a peaceful resolution to this longstanding and difficult problem. President Clerides' plan has received widespread support and international acclaim. The United Nations and the European Union have already stated their support for this plan and I am glad to see the House of Representatives join in this effort. This resolution is a balanced, fair, and bipartisan effort to support a peaceful resolution to the problem in Cyprus and to bring peace and stability to the eastern Mediterranean. I am proud to rise in support of this measure. It is in the best interest of the people of Cyprus, the people of the eastern Mediterranean, and the people of the United States. I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Concurrent Resolution 42.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer support for the passage of the Ryan White CARE Act. I strongly support the intent of this legislation, but have some strong concerns about the inequitable distribution of funds to non-title I areas. Currently, there is a 15 percent increase in the incidence of AIDS in rural areas. This is far greater than the 5 percent increase in cities of more than 50,000. I believe that we must address the serious problems associated with AIDS in all pockets of this country, not just the ones that are most visible. It is for this reason that I support inclusion of the Senate passed title II distribution formula. By adopting the Senate title II formula, the conference committee has an opportunity to put a stop to unfair double counting. In effect, double counting places a higher priority on the needs of AIDS patients in 42 metropolitan areas than it does the needs of AIDS victims across the rest of America. After all, who are we to geographically prioritize the value of American lives. As I have become more familiar with the horrors of this disease, I am acutely aware of the need for AIDS funding, and I appreciate the efforts of the chairman to craft a bill which addresses this growing concern. I hope that the conference committee will go one step further by adopting a title II formula which looks to the needs of all AIDS victims, and helps to prevent the spread of this dreadful disease in both urban and rural areas. Mr. Speaker, I along with other Members of the Commerce Committee, urge this body to support the reauthorization. I encourage the chairman and the ranking minority member to fight in Congress for the Senate formula so that all areas of this country can be represented.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is going broke. Not maybe. Not way down the road. If this Congress does not address this crisis, our Medicare system will be out of money by the year 2002. This is not an issue for partisan bickering. This is not an issue where business-as-usual is appropriate. The pending insolvency of Medicare threatens the availability of health care to more than 32 million of America's senior citizens. The Medicare crisis was defined in April by the Medicare Board of Trustees--including Secretaries Reich, Shalala, and Rubin. In their report on the status of the Medicare Program, they indicate that ``the Medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present form'' and they ``strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently addressed.'' Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our senior citizens to face this Medicare crisis head on. It is the responsibility of Congress to fulfill our commitment to this country's seniors and initiate Medicare reform making this program financially sound now and in the years to come.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, for 7 months now, I have tried to be guided in this House by my belief that to complete the transition in this country that we needed to go through, we needed to strengthen the community. That we needed to rely on communities to step up and to become individually responsible for some of the problems that we have in this country. In fact, as this bill is currently written, I believe that we threaten community values, that it undermines localism and the diversity in the local television markets. In fact, we do need to change the 25-percent law that currently stands on the book for ownership of network TV. But in fact, as it stands in this bill, Mr. Chairman, it will significantly reduce the availability of local programming in my district. In my district alone, things that might be affected would include the Billy Graham Special, where networks may not see that as a replacement for their prime time viewers; or maybe the tribute to the late Jim Valvano, the great basketball coach from North Carolina State; and a tradition in the South, Christmas parades, local parades, not the Macy's Parade in New York; telethons, that have become a tremendous impetus behind the fund-raisers for the United Negro College Fund; or started in Raleigh, NC, a program called Coats for Kids a telethon which raised $60,000 its first year; and the greatest love in the south, ACC basketball. Heaven forbid that would be banned because the national networks said you cannot preempt our programming. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I disagree, and we may argue about network ownership, the fact is we have to provide local programming. Vote to increase local ownership, but do not kill network programming. Vote for the Markey amendment.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. During the Commerce Committee's consideration of H.R. 1555, I offered an amendment designed to permit Bell operating telephone companies to resell the cellular services of their cellular affiliates. Currently, Bell operating companies, alone among local telephone companies, are prevented from providing or even reselling cellular services with their local services. Larger companies, like GTE--the largest local exchange carrier in the United States--are not restricted from marketing cellular services with their long distance or local services. Several of my colleagues were concerned that they had not had an ample opportunity to consider the amendment. With the understanding that it could be included in the managers' amendment if these members, upon further study, were not troubled by the substance of the amendment, I withdrew it. Having satisfied the members' concerns with new language, I want to thank the managers of this bill for agreeing to include that language in their amendment. As with my original amendment, the primary goal of the new language is to provide the Bell operating telephone companies with sufficient relief from existing FCC rules to permit them to offer one-stop shopping of local exchange services and cellular services. Currently, FCC rules not only prohibit those operating companies from physically providing cellular services--that is, from owning the towers, transmitters, and switches that make up cellular services--but also from marketing cellular services--that is, selling cellular services. This amendment does not lift the FCC's prohibition against the Bell operating telephone companies providing the cellular services; it merely permits them to jointly market or resell their cellular affiliate's cellular services along with their local exchange services. Under existing FCC polices, cellular providers must permit resale of their cellular services. Thus, virtually everyone but the Bell operating telephone companies can resell the cellular services of their cellular affiliates. Thus, together with other provisions in the bill, this amendment will help to put the Bell operating telephone companies on par with their competitors by allowing them to resell cellular services--including the provision of interLATA cellular services--in conjunctions with local exchange services and other wireless services--that is, PCS services-- that they are already permitted to provide. AT&T has voluntarily entered into a proposed consent decree with the Department of Justice. This would obviate certain potential violations of section 7 of the Clayton Act arising out of its acquisition of McCaw Cellular. To overcome the Department's opposition to the acquisition, AT&T agreed to certain restrictions regarding its provisions and marketing of McCaw's cellular services. In order to ensure that all carriers can offer similar service packages, language has been included in the amendment to supersede language in that pending decree. As a result, AT&T and others will be able to sell cellular services on the same terms as the Bell companies. Specifically, all carriers would be able to sell cellular services, including interLATA cellular services, along with local landline exchange offerings. However, the Bell operating companies will not be able to offer landline interLATA services in conjunction with such local telephone-- even in conjunction with a cellular/cellular interLATA service offering--until they have met the conditions for interLATA relief. Accordingly, the amendment makes it clear that it does not alter the effect of subsection 242(d) on AT&T or any other company. As a result, AT&T and other competitors subject to that provision will not be able to offer or market landline interLATA services with a local landline exchange offering--even in conjunction with a cellular/cellular interLATA package--until the Bell companies are authorized to do so.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 70 which lifts the ban on exporting Alaskan crude. The current ban on exporting Alaskan crude contained in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the Export Administration Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act has several negative impacts. Among other things, it has lead to artificially low prices for heavy crude on the west coast, thereby discouraging some otherwise profitable oil production in California. I believe this bill will lead to increased domestic oil production, increased oil industry related jobs and preserve existing maritime jobs. The Commerce Committee supports the amendments made by this act to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the other relevant statutes, so that Alaskan crude can be exported to the Pacific rim and elsewhere. It is important to note that EPCA is amended only with respect to export of the crude specified in the statute. No other modifications are made. Significantly, the United States obligations under the International Energy Agreement are unaffected by this provision. Finally, because of the legislation's impact on EPCA, I and other members of the Commerce Committee will continue to follow this bill through the legislative process and excessive oversight over its implementation. I support H.R. 70 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, in fact, we are here tonight and I rise in opposition to an amendment that does need exploring. The truth is that we are here to talk about an amendment that will, in fact, eliminate crop insurance to one small segment of our agricultural industry, tobacco, while corn, wheat and everything else continues to receive that special privilege. We say to an extension agent, you can go to a farm and you can talk about other agricultural products. You can even discuss the grass in that farmer's front yard. But if he asks you about tobacco, by law, Congress says you cannot talk to him about it. It does seem a little strange, and it does not make a lot of sense. The authors of this amendment are not trying to balance the budget. They are not even trying to streamline the Department of Agriculture. They want to kill a crop. They want to kill tobacco. Will they kill the family farm? Absolutely. Do they care? Absolutely not. Farmers are trying daily to survive, to pay their mortgage, to educate their children, to contribute to their community. But they do not care. I would say one thing to the authors of this bill. If you want to kill tobacco, then introduce a bill. Be brave enough to ask for what you want. Do not hide behind something that kills people who do not have a voice in it, the small farmers in this country. This is exactly the type of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that in fact the American people are sick of and I as a Member of Congress am sick of it. Do what is right. Defeat the Durbin amendment.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], I would like to consolidate FDA, but I would like to do it in a different way; through reducing the number of employees in an agency that is a misguided agency. It has grown well beyond its established limits under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. It is unconscionable that we would consider funding $64 million toward a new building to encourage continued growth of an agency that brags about the fact that it is ``getting new regulations out faster than ever before.'' Under Commissioner Kessler, the FDA has all but abandoned its core mission, the timely approval of drugs and medical devices. Earlier this year they admitted to a congressional subcommittee that they are still sitting on food additive petitions filed as early as March of 1971, for reasons nobody knows. The law requires that these petitions must be reviewed in 180 days or less. The FDA is requesting additional user fees and funding dollars. At the same time, their average drug approval time is an outrageous 14.8 years. Many medical devices take more than twice as long to approve in the United States then in the United Kingdom--hardly a country known for unsafe product approvals. The FDA's funding has increased by 237 percent since 1970. Their employment levels have increased by 106 percent. Meanwhile, in the past 5 years the review of 510(k) device applications takes 156 percent longer yet the number of applications they have received has only increased by 12 percent. So how is Dr. Kessler spending the taxpayer's money? He is seizing orange juice clearly labeled as made from concentrate, just because its brand name included the word ``fresh.'' He has also sent his inspectors to lead police on a raid against sellers of vitamins and health food supplements. He has conducted a campaign against letting doctors and researchers know how drugs might be used for treatments not specifically mentioned on the label. At a time when we are addressing the need for comprehensive reform and overhaul of the FDA, it seems inconsistent and irresponsible to even consider appropriating funds for a new FDA building. This is an agency that needs to be reigned in--not build up. Let's wait to see what the new and improved FDA looks like after we pass comprehensive reform legislation before we spend $64 million on a new FDA building. I urge strong support of the Duncan amendment, Mr. Chairman, don't encourage the FDA to live any larger.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, those here tonight that would suggest that it is going to be tough to balance the budget are in fact right. We knew it would be tough when we came to Congress, that there would be tough decisions, but we knew we were up to the task of making those decisions. Tonight we have a special opportunity. Tonight we have the opportunity to make it easier on working Americans to balance their budget. I hope we do not take this opportunity and blow it like we have in the past. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign there were two areas that I concentrated on very heavily, commitments to stop the punishment on seniors in this country and a commitment to leave money in the pockets of working Americans. Tonight we have an opportunity for seniors to roll back that unfair tax that was placed on them in 1993 and to raise the earnings limits of seniors to allow them to stay in the workplace and to be productive in their later years versus feeling like they are drain on us, and for the American families we have an opportunity to leave Washington and decide what to do here with it, as well as for those families that take care of parents and grandparents, to make sure there is a $500 credit for the added burden and costs that they incur. Mr. Chairman, the debate today is between those who feel they know best and those that believe that parents and seniors know best what to do with their money. Mr. Chairman, I, for one, am willing to bet on parents and seniors knowing best, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation tonight.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FDA exemption amendment. In the past several weeks, we have made many efforts to streamline government and to eliminate unnecessary duplication. This is another area where we can effectively do just that. The Food and Drug Administration has been charged with scientifically weighing the risks and benefits that go along with the development of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Anyone would be hard pressed to successfully argue that randomly selected tort juries are more qualified to reach these difficult, scientific conclusions. Progress comes with a certain degree of risk. Opponents of this amendment have argued that it will limit the ability of those harmed by a minimal risk factor to receive compensatory and non-economic damages such as pain, suffering, and lost wages. This amendment does not preclude their right to just compensation. By offering this exemption from punitive damages, our amendment will allow many people to reap the benefits of drugs and devices that companies have not manufactured, for fear of litigation. Support life drug research. Support a scientific balance between benefits and risk. Support the Oxley-Burr-Coburn-Tauzin-Brewster- Stenholm amendment to H.R. 1075.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention an article from Sunday's Washington Post entitled ``America, the Plaintiff.'' The story starts out like this. Suppose for a moment that a small drug company miraculously discovers a vaccine that can prevent cancer. Suppose that the drug is cheap, easy to administer and has a single, albeit serious, drawback: One in 10,000 people who take the drug may experience acute vision loss. Should the company bring the product to market, figuring that a relative handful of people may go blind, so that millions of lives can be saved? This is a question that pharmaceutical manufacturers ask every day. Each day they must weigh their hopes to save human lives against the threat of being punished over an FDA-approved product. How many times will we miss the opportunity to have a cure for cancer, or AIDs, or even the common cold, because a manufacturer knows that one product liability suit will jeopardize the future use of the product and possibly the company. I hope you will keep this story in mind when you consider your vote today in our lifesaving bipartisan amendment to encourage manufacturers to market FDA-approved products.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, no one can dispute the fact that our current welfare system is in shambles. Many years ago, the Federal Government took responsibility for the disadvantaged away from communities and, after spending billions of dollars every year for 30 years, made the situation worse. colleagues and the Clinton administration are trying to convince the American people that big brother Government knows what's better for a community than the people who live there. They call this proposal mean spirited and callous. In reality, the only mean spirited thing in this whole debate is the current state of our welfare system. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think I understand why my colleagues oppose these reforms. They are simply afraid to admit the Great Society failed. But, now is the time for us to move on and begin transforming our welfare system from a social drug promoting dependence to a program that enables the participants to become productive members of society.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. BURR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BURR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, what we have had is a continuation of the rhetoric that we heard already in committee. The reason that there is so strong opposition to this bill is the fact that many of the rules that are on the books today, if they were to go through a cost-benefit analysis, would not pass. They would be judged not in the best benefit of the American people. It is time that we speak up for what is in the best interests and benefit for not only the health, but for the taxpayers out there. It is this bill that will allow the risk analysis, that risk be performed on it. The fact is that we should go back and we should look at things that are already on the books to determine are they in the best interests of the American people. But if we do not pass this legislation, that will not happen.