Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), who knows the difference between a cancer drug and a strawberry.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). (Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire once again as to the time allocations.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Current law allows importation. Current law contains 10 provisions to protect the safety of drug supplies in this country, 10 provisions protecting the safety of those drugs that are imported into this country. This bill that the Members are asked to vote on tonight strikes all 10 of those safety provisions, all 10. I am going to show the Members tonight what we get if we pass this bill. What we are looking at now is a Web site of a Canadian prescription center where one can order prescriptions from Canada right now which would be legalized under this bill, illegal under current law because the FDA cannot verify the safety of drugs obtained on this Web site. The FDA obtained some drugs on this Web site to just see what they could get. I want to show the Members what they got. What they got was this drug. This is a drug called Gabapentin. It is used as an antiseizure measure. It is to prevent seizures for people who have all kinds of seizures with all kinds of diseases. Do the Members know where it was made? It was made in India, not in Canada; and it came to an American over that Canadian Web site. And do the Members know what is in it? Nothing. It is water inside this package. And the folks who buy it in America at these cheap prices we are told they are going to get it for nothing except fake drugs. Here is another set of drugs to look at. This is one is called Serostim. It is used by HIV/AIDS patients to prevent wasting. This is the authentic one; this is the fake one. The fake one contains nothing but pond water. Imagine giving that to an HIV/AIDS patient. Is the price, half price, quarter price worth it to take a drug like that? I want to ask the Members something before we end this debate, and I have the greatest respect for those who bring this issue to the floor because I hate the fact that Canada and other countries take advantage of our patients in America, and we have to end those trade imbalances. We have to fight them. We do. We do. But I want to ask one question. If the Members vote to say that safety does not count and Americans increasingly buy these drugs full of nothing but pond water and diluted and old and rotten drugs, are they going to have to face the mother and father the way we faced them this week who said, Why is my son dead, because you did not put FDA regulations into place? Vote down this bill. It is dangerous for every American. It needs to be defeated.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the backward thinking amendment that would reinstate antiquated local media ownership limitations. Republicans have long been awaiting a time to deregulate, since 1984, in fact; and the commission action on June 2 modifies all of its media ownership rules to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an act we all agreed upon, and the Court's interpretation of that act. The FCC proceeding represents, in fact, the culmination of a deregulatory effort that had its birth in the Reagan administration. This amendment would stop in its tracks the reasonable deregulation of the new rules. It would bring back the outdated rules of the past. In fact, under one interpretation of the Hinchey amendment, it would roll back existing exemptions that have been granted by the FCC over many years. Under one interpretation, for example, the exception that has been granted for satellite stations, where a station can own in joint ownership an unmanned TV station that is a satellite in a rural area, that exception would be rolled back and TV stations serving rural communities in America would have to shut down. Under some interpretations of this amendment, assignments that have been made that were grandfathered for many years would be rolled back and companies would have to divest ownership they currently have in stations. In fact, under this amendment, the provisions of the FCC for so-called short-form assignments, what happens when companies reorganize themselves, would considerably be rolled back; and as a result, there could be divestitures argued under this amendment. So this backwards-thinking amendment has the potential of even going back and undoing exemptions that have been granted by Democratic FCCs over the years to accommodate such things as the public interest requirements when a station goes bankrupt, becomes defunct, and has to be picked up by some other station. Let me right the misconception that has been before this body and, unfortunately, pervaded the hearings at the Subcommittee on Appropriations. There are 1,340 television stations in America. Guess how many Viacom owns? The answer is 39; 2.9 percent. Guess how many Fox owns? The answer is 37, or 2.8 percent. Guess how many NBC owns? Twenty-nine, 2.2 percent. ABC owns 10, eight-tenths of one percent. In fact, if you combine all the network ownership of television stations, it comes to about 115, which is less than 10 percent of all the stations operating in America. You would think that the networks own them all, 90 percent of them, to hear the rhetoric around this debate. The new rules that have been adopted by the FCC replace the old newspaper-broadcast-radio-TV cross-ownership rules, with the new set of rules that allow for different and targeted regulatory treatment, depending upon the market size. It is a size system of regulation, replacing the old autocratic and, in many cases, arbitrary rules. The new rules would allow economies of scale to be achieved on the local level, while ensuring a diversity of voices would be preserved by permitting, for the first time, common ownership of multiple stations in the largest markets or expanding the markets where duopolies are, in fact, permitted. But importantly, while it allows them to do this in the larger markets, it does not allow that to occur in the smaller markets. In fact, 73 markets enjoy no duopoly deregulatory relief whatsoever because they are the smaller markets in America. The FCC's extension record shows that co-owned stations competed more effectively with cable and satellite, improved the quality of the second station, and transitioned to digital quicker. All things said, the benefits flow to the public. Remember, television stations do not compete against one another alone. They compete against pay-per-view cable and pay-per-view satellite; and if we weaken the capacity of over-the-air broadcast television to reach Americans economically and efficiently, we kill off one of the most important video outlets in America; and, therefore, we hurt, not help, over-the-air broadcasting. Moreover, the amendment would prevent new markets from enjoying the clear localism and diversity public interest benefits. The commission found that their new rules will promote localism, because they increase the capacity of these stations to survive against these other important competitors. The administration supports the FCC, and has urged Members to oppose efforts to roll back these rules that ensure that our Nation's free, over-the-air broadcasters can effectively compete against all of these new pay services. If all we want is pay services, the Hinchey amendment will take us there.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and he makes a good point. I should also say that I speak for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), all of whom were invited into this process as authorizing chairmen to work with this Committee on Appropriations. And, again, all of us want to thank the gentleman for the way in which he has approached the serious duties we have in authorizing the programs that the gentleman so diligently worked to correctly appropriate for. I thank the gentleman for that. amendment offered by mr. tom davis of virginia

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me take this time to first thank and express my appreciation on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to the chairman of the subcommittee who brings this bill before us today and to the ranking member from Indiana for the extraordinary cooperative spirit in which this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations has worked with our authorizing committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on so many issues of importance when it comes to funding the energy programs of our country that are under our committee's jurisdiction. This is a great example of how the appropriators can and should work with authorizing committees. We just saw a point of order that was ruled by the chairman on behalf of our committee to strike language that would have legislated on this appropriation bill. We have had many discussions with the chairman and ranking member and our staffs over the past few days, and have worked through the bill to both approve those changes our committee agrees with the appropriators that should be included in this appropriation bill, and to find the language, such as the one we just objected to and might have been proposed authorizing language on an appropriation bill. The spirit by which that has been accomplished has been, I hope, an example for all the authorizing committees and the appropriators. I want to thank the chairman again personally for the way in which he has approached us and asked us for these discussions and, in fact, worked with the ranking member for us to reach these agreements and these conclusions. I wish it was true of all the subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations. What occurred this week in another appropriations matter, where legislation was added that was strictly objected by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and which has now produced a bill which will have very great difficulty moving through this House, is a bad example of that kind of relationship. All of the authorizing chairmen that I work with on the committees of jurisdiction, who work very hard with the staffs, who are extraordinarily competent in these areas, and the Members who spend all their waking hours working in these committees in these specific authorizing areas are offended when legislation comes on an appropriation bill changing the policies or in some way affecting the policies that we so carefully try to work out for the benefit of this body, both on the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle. And when we find we do not have the cooperation of an appropriating committee, it really is disturbing. This is a good example of how the process should work. I wanted to come to the floor to thank the chairman and the ranking member for showing, I hope, the other subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations how it should be done, how it ought to be done, and how the relationship between authorizing and appropriating committees should, in fact, be a strong and cooperative and workable one.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The Secretary should perform these reviews as expeditiously as possible once the R&D or procurement has started so as to prevent any exports of countermeasures or countermeasure R&D that could harm our U.S. national security.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He raised a great number of concerns as we went true this process. I want to thank the gentleman for the way in which he worked with Members on both sides of the aisle so we cannot only take care of those concerns but produce a great product for the security of our country, and he has added immeasurably to that effort.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 15, 2003, I call up the bill (H.R. 2122) to enhance research, development, procurement, and use of biomedical countermeasures to respond to public health threats affecting national security, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. These provisions do not preempt the Public Buildings Act to the extent that it would otherwise apply to such activities.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is also correct. The Project Bioshield Act authorizes the construction of highly specialized laboratories, all of which I would expect to be biosafety level 3 or 4 laboratories unsuitable for general purpose use. Project Bioshield does not authorize the construction of ``public buildings'' as defined by the Public Buildings Act of 1959.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is also correct. The authority allows the Secretary to take control of these facilities only during, and as necessary to respond to, public health emergencies affecting national security. Under the Bioterrorism Response Act passed last year, a public health emergency can be declared by the Secretary for up to 90 days at a time; and although the Secretary may extend the designation for multiple 90-day periods, it is not the intention of this legislation to allow the Secretary to control a facility for the useful life of that facility.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a couple of other Members who need to do colloquies. While we are waiting, I wanted to take this time, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a letter received today from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Tommy Thompson, dated July 16, 2003; and I want to place the letter in the Record at this point. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, July 16, 2003. Hon. Billy Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Tauzin: Thank you for your leadership on H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of 2003. This legislation is a critical step toward strengthening our ability to protect Americans against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. H.R. 2122 would: (1) speed the Government's ability to turn promising scientific discoveries into necessary countermeasures by one-third or more; (2) authorize funding to purchase critical new countermeasures targeted against the most worrisome threats; and (3) allow the Food and Drug Administration to make promising treatments quickly available to Americans in emergency situations. I would like to address two issues that have arisen as the House takes up this vital priority. First, I share Representative Wamp's interest in building domestic capacity to produce countermeasures. In implementing Project BioShield, I will do everything in my power to purchase from domestic sources. To have a secure supply, we must build capacity within the United States and my department is committed to achieving that objective. The essential purpose of Project BioShield is to ensure we have necessary and timely countermeasures. We cannot achieve this goal by relying on foreign sources. Building a robust domestic capacity to produce countermeasures is, therefore, at the very heart of Project BioShield. Second, I agree with Representative Jackson-Lee that the Strategic National Stockpile must serve all areas of the Nation, including rural areas. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has positioned stockpile assets to deliver needed medical supplies anywhere in the country within 12 hours. I have a personal understanding of the challenges that rural areas face and share Representative Jackson-Lee's interest in rural America. My department is pro-actively working with state and local health departments to ensure the effective and timely delivery of stockpile assets to both rural and urban parts our Nation. If I can provide you or the members of the Committee with any further information or if I can otherwise be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tommy G. Thompson. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to refer to it because the Secretary refers to several concerns raised by other Members of the House, of which I also share with him, and I think we will have a colloquy on one of those. The first is a concern by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) whose interest is in building domestic capacity to produce countermeasures; and, indeed, the Secretary indicates in his letter that it is indeed his desire to make sure those countermeasures are developed within this country. We cannot achieve the goal of securing our country if indeed we rely upon foreign sources for these measures; and, therefore, the building of robust domestic capacity to produce these countermeasures is at the very heart of the Bioshield Project. I wanted to assure my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), that I share the Secretary's comments and his intentions in that regard. Secondly, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was concerned that strategic national stockpile must be developed in such a way as to serve rural areas of the country, not simply the urban areas of our country, because rural areas can be affected by these bioterrorism threats just as easily, obviously, as urban areas. The Secretary indicates that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has positioned stockpile assets anywhere in the country, delivery within 12 hours, in effect making sure that rural areas are not left out of the protection of this bill and the other bioterrorism bills that have passed the House and are part of the Centers for Disease Control stockpiles and distribution system. So that those two concerns by our colleagues are addressed in this letter, and I wanted to share with those colleagues my agreement with the Secretary on both of those points. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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