Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, to clear a matter for the record, I want to be clear that the manager's amendment provides that the saving clause found in section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall be interpreted to mean neither the antitrust laws nor the application of those laws by the courts are repealed by, precluded by, diminished by, or incompatible with the Communications Act of 1934, this act, or any law amended by neither such act. Mr. Chairman, we have seen some pretty charts today. I remember when the networks were really getting the election wrong last year, when they got the Presidential election so messed up with all their predictions. Tim Russert came with a little chart, a little chartboard, and he said, Here it is, the election will be settled in Florida. He was so right. I watched all these pretty charts, and I have drawn my own while we were talking. This is the state of broadband in America. This is what broadband looks like. Ninety percent of America is unserved, unconnected, and 90 percent of America denied the benefits of this incredible new technology. Guess who lives in that 90 percent? The Members guessed it, people who live in the rural parts of America, people who live in the underserved parts of America, the people who live in the minority centers of our cities in America, the people who are going to be the last ones cable reaches out to with broadband if cable is the only provider on the ground. Look at the state of broadband in America. Only 10 percent of Americans are connected, and two-thirds of that, 70 percent, about, is connected by cable. No wonder, no wonder AT&T cable is the biggest opponent of this bill. There is a quote in a Wall Street Journal article last week: `` `Global Crossing built the highway,' '' the high-speed network, ``says Jeffrey Eisenach of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, but the FCC destroyed the incentives for the Bells to build the on ramps.'' They were talking about the Tauzin-Dingell bill getting rid of these phony regulations that have stopped the building of the on and off ramps to the rest of America. No wonder that bill ``. . . is hung up, thanks to its opposition from AT&T and the other cable operators.'' This is the same fight we fought in 1992, the same fight when we came to this floor with a dream, a dream that instead of regulating the cable companies, we could create competition for them in video. We stood on the floor of this House in 1992 and on the Senate floor and passed a bill saying there would be an alternative, there would be a theater in the sky, satellite television, and 20 million Americans now have the benefit of satellite direct broadcast television, 500 beautiful channels of television to compete with cable; not just a second choice, I will remind the Members, but a second store to keep cable honest. This bill is about keeping cable honest, about creating a competitor to broadband, about building the on and off ramps for the 90 percent of America that is left out, about making sure that the Internet is free of regulation. No wonder the regulators oppose this bill. They would love to regulate the Internet, just like the taxing authorities would love to tax the Internet. Keep the Internet free, free broadband deployment, connect America, give us all a chance to enjoy this amazing technology. That is what Tauzin-Dingell does, and that is why we need to pass the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the excellent work I think we put in together with our staffs to ensure, in fact, that the antitrust laws will fully apply to all operations of the Bell companies as they currently conduct their business and telephone service and in their new businesses in broadband. He and I are equally committed to watch carefully the performance of these companies and others to make sure that consumers have the benefits of competition and not the penalties of monopoly unregulated service. We are going to work together, and I thank him again for working with our subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on the Tauzin-Dingell bill, I think it is important to recognize that once the House gets through with its business today perhaps Americans can start enjoying Coca-Cola and Pepsi commercials again instead of these massive commercials advertising for or against Tauzin-Dingell. It is also important to say what Tauzin- Dingell is as opposed to what it is not. What it is is an effort that my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the former chairman of the committee and I have worked on for years, a bill we filed in 1999 because we saw in advance of what has occurred the collapse of so much of the high tech industry if we did not free broadband from the grip of bureaucratic regulation and if we did not create an incentive for there to be real competition in the marketplace, so we filed the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. That is the real title. Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment, that is what it is all about. Now, there are two worlds out there. There are two worlds out there in communications. There is the old world of communications, the old voice telephone world that is still heavily regulated by government at all levels, local, State and Federal levels. That is an old world that is regulated in price and terms and conditions in a way that separates the way we talk to one another on the basis of distance, long distance and local. There is a new world, the future of communications that is characterized by the Internet which does not care how far we live from one another. It does not care how tightly we are packed into communities or how sparsely we live in rural communities of America. It is the Internet world. It is the satellite world. It is the world of cable-delivered systems where distance is irrelevant, where we pay a single rate and then we can communicate, and we are not caught in this old world recollection of distance. On the Internet it does not matter whether I live in Tokyo or Seattle or Jack Bay, Louisiana. I can communicate with anybody in the world. But even the Internet is part of the old world now. Today we talk about a new world of Internet communications called broadband. As I said earlier, when I tried to explain this to my buddies at the hunting camp, I like to use this analogy: When you think about the old Internet it is like going to the refrigerator to get a cold beer and finding out the refrigerator is turned off, and you have to turn it on, and you have to put your beer in and wait for it to get cold, and then sometime later you finally get it and enjoy it. That is the old Internet, the old dial-up service. The new broadband Internet we are talking about has systems that are so fast, so rich, always on, always ready, it is like going to that refrigerator, and it is always on, and when you open the door you have the bierskeller in there. There are so many varieties of rich, wonderful choices for you. In the real world we talk about choices on entertainment, information, education, and all sorts of things like long distance tele-medicine, all made possible when we finally connect America to the big broadband Internet systems that have been built in this system in this country but do not have on or off ramps for Americans to get on and off. After all these years, only 10 percent of Americans are connected to these systems. These are the lowest denominator systems. If I am in high speed and you are at low speed and we are connected, I am at your speed. Until we get more Americans connected with broadband, until we get real competition in those systems, America is handicapped and the high tech economy is in neutral. This bill is about jobs. It is about creating 1.2 million jobs by turning loose the investments in broadband deployment, by making sure that every company that can deliver a line to a house can offer broadband services. It is about consumers. It is about ensuring that consumers who live in the country, consumers who live in the inner cities of this country who might wait forever for broadband services get it on a lot quicker. It says there must be deployment within the 5-year period to every part of this country, every community. It says we will have competition in that deployment. I was on the floor of this House in 1992, a long time ago, to make sure that cable television had a real competitor. And this House joined with me and the Senate joined with me, and eventually we had to override a veto to make sure that satellite television had a chance to compete against cable television. Today, we make the same fight for consumers. We make the same fight to make sure everybody has a chance to get broadband Internet services, and we want to make sure that they have competition and choice in that marketplace. That is what the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act is all about. It is good for consumers. It is great for jobs. It is great for this economy. It sends the right message. It sends the Internet, high speed, rich, fast, fully deployed broadband Internet is going to be available to Americans without the heavy hand of government regulating it in terms, prices and conditions. It means that we will have choice and competition in that marketplace and that all Americans will enjoy the benefits instead of just a few of this amazing revolution in communication. This is about the future. There are people who rise on the floor and will talk to you about the past and how we ought to employ all the rules and regulations of the past to this new communications structure. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I will ask you to think about the future and how we can build a future where every American has access to these new systems and we can be rich in education and information and entertainment and commerce again. We can put America back to work and get this economy going and give Americans real choice in high speed broadband Internet services. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, we certainly accept that explanation and understand it. Mr. Chairman, while we are awaiting the arrival of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to another great Member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Yes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) present to use that time?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of this time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I suppose everyone in America has heard the term Tauzin-Dingell to describe this bill, but I want to describe the full and complete name of the bill. The bill is correctly entitled the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, why is that important? Because that is essentially what the bill does. It ensures that the Internet remains free. Free of what? Free of government regulation both at the State and Federal level and makes sure that the Internet in fact is as free as Americans and people around the world hoped it would be. Secondly, it is about broadband deployment, and I want to associate myself with the fine description of the gentleman from Texas of how this bill delivers access to citizens in the poorest parts of America who will wait forever for broadband services unless we turn lose the creativity of these companies. Let me try to put it in lay terms as I would explain to my buddies at a hunting camp in Louisiana what broadband really is. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said it right. Broadband is a system that delivers the Internet. It is about the Internet. It is not about the old world of telephone compensation where the government separates so Americans have to pay more every time you make a distant call. Mr. Speaker, it is about the Internet where distance is irrelevant, where Americans can share data and information with anyone in the world. It is about a distant irrelevant, incredibly important new communication system for our country and the world. And broadband is not the Internet our daddies drove. It is the new Internet. It is not the Internet where we had to dial up and wait patiently to get some information. It is a new, high-speed, hot, ready to go, rich-with- information system that is going to make the Internet the engine that is going to drive the American economy into the future. This bill is about jobs. It is about creating 1.2 million new jobs to replace the 300,000 jobs lost in the telecommunications industry. It is the biggest consumer bill we will see this Congress because it gives consumers across America, some of them the first chance to get broadband, where we are only 10 percent connected in this country, and some of them a chance to get a competitive system so they can choose between broadband suppliers. Members know the difference there. Members know what happens with one store in town: there are high prices, bad products, bad service, and bad attitudes. When the second store comes to town, consumers get better prices, better service, better products and better attitudes. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about bringing the second store to town, to make sure that the dominant cable broadband supplier has a real competitor at home so consumers can make a choice. It is about making sure that the Internet is free from the bureaucrats who might regulate it to death the way they almost did the telephone industry. This is a bill about protecting the Internet and its freedom, developing its capabilities for our country, and creating new jobs. I commend the Committee on Rules for finally bring it to the floor for a vote.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an amendment that provided preferential speech in America it is the Torricelli amendment, and we ought to strike it. This amendment says that somehow Federal candidates for office in America, Federal politicians are entitled to special privileges, special rates, special time on the broadcast waves of America while other citizens are treated differently. Other citizens do not get those breaks. Other people who want to speak in this country politically do not get those breaks, just Federal candidates. Come on. This is the sort of thing the Founding Fathers worried about when they wrote the first amendment that said we should protect American citizens against the government dictating free speech.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Let me point out two factors about this provision that I think require us to pass this amendment. The first is that the provision allows not only the keeping of this soft money for the building of a building, but the keeping of it so long as you never build that building. There is no time limits on how long this money can be kept. So if one decides just not to use it, one can simply put it in a CD and just keep it around. Now, why would one do that? Well, there are no provisions against using this money as collateral for other loans. So, therefore, this money could be kept in a CD, this soft money, this money that is supposed to be bad and corrupting, in a CD, collateralize loans. And then because the loans are made to the committee, the committee can use that loan money as hard money and spend it on ads or whatever other purposes for campaign money you want in effect. Because soft money like all money is fungible, it can be cleverly, and there are some accountants around to help you, and I assure you from the hearings we conducted, there are accountants around that can help one do it if one wants to do it, keep this soft money indefinitely. Use it as collateral. Every time one runs into trouble, just borrow against it, spend it for campaigns, spend it for ads. Do all the things my colleagues say they want to make outlawed. If Members believe soft money is so corrupting, why would they want to keep it around and perhaps use it for that purpose, simply not build the building, constantly borrow against it? Pay off the loan when one could, but constantly borrow against it as collateral whenever extra money was needed for a campaign? In effect, converting soft money into hard money through the process of using as collateral. That is what this bill currently allows to be done. Now, why would either party want to allow that to happen if, in fact, Members want to get rid of soft money as a corrupting feature in future campaigns? This amendment is necessary to correct this defect in the bill that the Senate was clever enough not to include in their legislation, and we ought to adopt the amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3487, the Nurse Reinvestment Act. The United States health care system relies heavily on the services provided by nurses who are essential for ensuring comfortable and quality care for all patients. Unfortunately, health care providers and recent media reports have reported rising vacancy rates in the nursing profession. Due to the lack of young people entering the nursing profession, the average age of the working nurse has increased to over 43 years old. If we do not encourage more young people to choose a career in nursing, the nursing workforce may reach dangerously low levels. This is taking place during a time when our demand for nursing services is growing, and will continue to grow into the future. To combat this problem and encourage more young people to enter the nursing profession, this legislation provides for public service announcements that highlight the rewards of a career in nursing. Additionally, the bill expands Title 8 of the Public Health Service Act to provide scholarships for nursing students. Students receiving these loans and scholarships will be required to serve in a health care facility that has a shortage of nurses. H.R. 3487 also provides for a study on nursing faculty. As more and more people enter nursing school, it is necessary to ensure there will be an adequate number of faculty to train them. I commend Chairman Bilirakis and Mrs. Capps for working in a truly bipartisan manner to craft this legislation to ensure our nation will have enough nursing professionals to ensure quality patient care. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Nurse Reinvestment Act.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for the excellent work he has done here and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for putting this important bill together, because this bill literally will protect the operations of the organ donor organizations and continue their certification through the year 2004 or 2005, which is extremely important if we are going to keep up the business by which Americans contribute organs to the ongoing living needs of those who need organ transplants in our society. This is the season of giving; and while we pass this important bill to improve the organ transplant structure in this country by ensuring the certification of these organizations, I wanted to give you a good Christmas-giving story that is ongoing at this moment. Just this afternoon, the children of my State in Louisiana, recognizing this incredible time of year when Americans care for one another and appreciate the coming of the Christ child with gifts to one another, the children of my State came together in a very loving and wonderful way. This afternoon at the White House, the Governor of my State, Governor Foster, arrived with the former Speaker of the House, Hunt Downer, who headed up the project, along with National Guardsmen and State troopers who accompanied them with a brand new fire truck that the children of Louisiana raised in the last several months with nickels and dimes and pennies they collected. They forgave the right to Christmas gifts this year, many of them, to contribute to this fund. This all began when the Governor of our State, Governor Foster, in his weekly live network of talk on radio that he carries on with the citizens of my State was delivered with the suggestion that the State do this as a gesture of our support in Louisiana for the victims of the awful atrocities that occurred here in Washington and in Pennsylvania and, of course, most dramatically in New York where we saw the heroes, the firemen and the other rescue workers, who were killed in trying to save others' lives in that horrible tragedy. So the children of my State, with their little nickels and dimes and quarters, and the other folks in our State, got together and contracted with Ferrara Industries in Louisiana, which is one of the largest manufacturers of fire engines, the workers of that plant gave up their overtime, free, to make sure that the project could be conducted under cost, and today they stopped by the White House with this brand new fire engine that the children of Louisiana are presenting to the people of New York and to the brave firemen of that great State who suffered such great losses on September 11. Not only did they generously raise the money to build that fire engine, but it turns out that they raised twice as much as they expected, and it looks like they may be able to buy and deliver a second fire engine to the fire company in New York and to the citizens of that great State. This is a beautiful Christmas story. It is a story that I wanted to tell when we took up this organ transplant bill, because it is all about giving. It is all about us remembering our obligations as citizens of this great land to care for one another, particularly when we find ourselves in trouble. So, from one of the poorest states in America, the State that has some of the highest unemployment and the highest uninsured, one of the lowest per capita income States, the children of one of the poorest states in America, reacting generously at a time of need for fellow citizens in New York, I bring you the greetings of that great State, of our Governor, of our legislature, of our National Guard, of our workers, of our citizens, and, most importantly, of our children, who extend to the folks in New York our sincerest sorrow for what they have gone through, and our sense of bonding with them and this gift that our citizens and our children are making to that great State. It is in that same spirit that Americans donate organs and that the organ donor organizations work. That is why this bill is so important. In another minute we will take up another bill dealing with a nursing shortage in this country, a nursing shortage that is going to be felt in New York and was felt in this community when care personnel were unfortunately short and unavailable when so many people were in need. This nursing shortage has to be addressed, and I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) again for the extraordinary work they did on that bill to begin addressing that great need in our country. So as we get closer and closer to Christmas Day, when all of us will gather with our families and celebrate the coming of the Christ Child and the spirit of giving, these two bills come before us, one to make sure the organ transplant system continues to work, the second to beef up and to strengthen our nursing corps in America, and on this day the children of Louisiana make this gift to the citizens of New York. This, unfortunately, while we are still in session waiting for Christmas to come, and hopefully we will get out in time for it, this is still a good day, and it is a good story, and bears repeating and bears mentioning on the floor of the House today. I am proud of my State and the children in Louisiana, as all of us in our delegation are, and we are equally proud of the people of New York and the heroes we saw in New York responding to the awful tragedy and atrocities of September 11. We stand together as one great people, and we stand together as a strong Nation that cares about one another. That is what this bill is about, and that is what the kids in Louisiana are about. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3504, which makes technical corrections to organ procurement organization legislation the House passed in October 2000. Mr. Burr and Mr. Pallone are to be commended for their hard work in drafting this bill. Last year the House passed, and the President signed into law, the Public Health Improvement Act. Among other things, that legislation addressed a very important need in the area of organ donation and procurement. The law recognizes the importance of the vital network of organ procurement organizations, otherwise known as ``O-P-O's'', around the country and clarified in law the process the Department of Health and Human Services should use in certifying these OPO's and to measure their performance. Members on both sides of the aisle, and in both bodies, worked hard to ensure that HHS's process and procedures will keep pace with change and with technological improvements in the organ donation area. Our intent last year was clear, Madam Speaker. We intended to create a four-year re-certification cycle for the OPO's. Now, however, we are told by the accrediting agency, CMS, that the statute is unclear on one of the most important provisions of law. Under their interpretation, CMS believes they may have the authority to de-certify OPO's even though CMS has yet to develop the new criteria for judging OPO's. Madam Speaker, this is a vitally important issue for our OPO's. They need clarity on the process by which they will be reviewed by HHS. Without this technical correction language, OPO's believe that ambiguity will once again dictate the circumstances under which they are certified and later recertified. This language will ensure all OPO's which were certified as of 2000 will be certified through mid- 2004. Let's let the OPO's do what they do best: increasing the supply of organs to meet our organ transplantation needs. Vote yes on this bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about the stimulus package, it is not about the airlines, it is not about drilling in ANWR. It is about children. It is about whether or not we are going to continue a law that is working; not pass a new law, but simply continue a law that is working, and that everyone who has looked at it says it is working not just well, but exceptionally well. Let me point out a couple of things: One, the bill does not raise drug costs to anybody. It simply extends pediatric exclusivity, exclusivity of patents, for 6 months. It does not do it because the drug company wants that. It does it because the FDA decides that a certain drug that is being given to adults may have serious consequences if given to children without a special study done on the effects of the drug on the young mind and body of a young child to make sure in fact that a drug that is very potent and helpful for adults may not have the same effect on children. The FDA decides to ask the drug company to do special testing for children, and then if they find out that this drug has special effects on children, to make sure that the label on the drug indicates that to the doctor before he prescribes it to a child. Now, I ask Members, does this extra 6 months of patent protection help the drug company? Of course it does. They get 6 more months of protection under their patent if they agree to do this testing that the FDA requests, and if in fact they do it and the tests are run and children, we find out, should not be getting a half-dose or quarter- dose but maybe an eighth of a dose, and under special kinds of treatments and circumstances, then we end up protecting children in a very special way. How much so? We are told that this extra 6 months of exclusivity may add about one-half of 1 percent to the drug costs in America during that 6 months of extra exclusivity under the patent. What do we get back for it? According to the study, we save $7 billion a year in health care costs for our children, and so we are not crippling them and hurting them with drugs that could hurt and cripple them instead of helping them. Seven billion dollars, ten-to-one benefits for the most vulnerable, the most sacred of all the charges that God has ever presented us with on this Earth, the protection of our own children and their health. That is what we are talking about. It is not about the stimulus plan or drilling in Alaska or airline workers. It is about whether or not we are going to continue a law that is about to expire; that protects children in this country; that works exceptionally well; that was designed by a Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), together with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) in 1997 and has proven itself out. So today we cast a vote along with the Senate, which did not cast a dissenting vote against this bill. We cast a vote today to continue this good law in effect. Is that worth doing? Yes. And I hope this House joins me in passing this bill.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the chairman and ensure him that our committee is anxious to work with his Committee on Government Reform. If he will be kind enough to share the documentation and the results of his hearings with our committee, we will be more than happy to work with him.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1789) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals for children.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1789, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I wish to commend the hard work of the House sponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), two extraordinarily valuable members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and urge swift passage of this bipartisan bill. The bill before us today represents a product of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation. This is strikingly similar to the legislation that already passed this House on November 15 by a vote of 338 to 86. Because the bill passed by the other body differed slightly from the House-passed bills, the bills had to be reconciled. S. 1789 is a product of those negotiations. The Senate recently approved the bill without a single dissenting vote. For years, drugs used in children were not tested for children. To address this situation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) worked together in 1997 to provide manufacturers with an incentive to test these drugs specifically for children. The incentive adopted then was an additional 6 months of exclusivity under the patents added to the existing exclusivity of patent protection for testing these drugs at the request of the FDA. The incentive has worked extraordinarily well. According to the FDA: ``The pediatric exclusivity provision has done more to generate clinical studies and useful prescribing information for the pediatric population than any other regulatory or legislative process to date.'' According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the incentive ``has advanced therapeutics for infants, children and adolescents, in a way that has not been possible in several decades prior to the passage of this law.'' Every children's group in America supports this reauthorization. This is why the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill by a strong bipartisan vote of 41 to 6. The differences between the bill that passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the bill before us today are minimal. The main difference is that the Greenwood-Eshoo regulation created a new Foundation for Pediatric Research, while S. 1789 subsumes that foundation within the existing NIH Foundation. A few Members may oppose the reauthorization by saying that pediatric exclusivity has provided a windfall to industry and increased costs to consumers. Well, truth be told, while some companies have indeed benefited financially for testing their drugs in children, the GAO notes that ``while there has been some concern that exclusivity may be sought and granted primarily for drugs that generate substantial revenue, most of the drugs studied are not top sellers.'' In fact, 20 of the 37 drugs which have been granted exclusivity fall outside the top 200 in terms of drug-sale revenues. Further, the FDA estimates that the cost of this provision adds about one-half of one percent to the Nation's pharmaceutical bill. Importantly, because the FDA has failed to act, this legislation contains a provision which will result in generic drugs being approved when their labeling omits the pediatric indication or other aspect of labeling which is protected by the patent exclusivity. While one drug has been prominently mentioned in this debate, the FDA has informed the committee that a number of drugs have received 3 years of additional exclusivity for pediatric use under Hatch-Waxman. It is my strong belief that in implementing this provision, the Secretary will apply it comprehensively and uniformly to all affected drugs; and to ensure that all interested parties have their voices heard, the Secretary should provide for public notice and comment in implementing this important provision. Pediatric exclusivity has resulted in drugs which are used in children being tested on children and for children; and due to this law, drug labels are being changed to contain pediatric labeling. Now, because of the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the law will also ensure that generic drugs used in children will also have their labels changed. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Coalition for Children's Health, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation are all telling us to pass the Greenwood-Eshoo legislation now. If this program is not reauthorized this year, it expires. Do not be in a position of having to explain to your children's hospitals or to the Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric AIDS Foundation why you killed their top priority. My recommendation to this House is to vote yes on this worthy bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. 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 S. 1789.