Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

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 insert extraneous material on this legislation now being considered.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3323, the Administrative Simplification Compliance Act introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). A little over 5 years ago, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, a far-reaching law that imposed significant new requirements on health care plans and providers and created basic consumer protections in a number of areas. One of the most important provisions of the act, although infrequently discussed in Congress, relates to administrative simplification. This provision implements common standards for electronic health care transactions. It was designed to increase the health care system's efficiency and effectiveness, to improve law enforcement's ability to prevent fraud and abuse, and generally to reduce administrative burdens for plans and providers. We in Congress strongly support the goals of administrative simplification. The provision's implementation will eliminate the confusing patchwork of electronic and paper standards that exist in the health care marketplace. However, as plans and providers move toward common electronic standards, we must also recognize that their efforts will require a significant amount of time and money, and that perhaps the time frames Congress originally set forth in statute to comply with these rules should be modified. On August 17, 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services published its final rule implementing the standards for electronic health care transactions. The rule required all plans and providers to come into compliance with administrative simplification standards by October 16, 2002. From speaking with many people in the health care system during the past year, we have concluded that this deadline is much too ambitious. That is why we are here today. The Hobson legislation will provide plans and providers with one additional year to come into compliance with the administrative simplification standards. His legislation, which is a compromise product negotiated between the bill's sponsors, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Ways and Means allows covered entities the extra time they need to ensure that they will continue taking steps to come into compliance. I would like to point out that one important change to the legislation is now in the bill in its reintroduced version. In its original form, H.R. 3323 imposed a $1 user fee on every paper claim submitted to the Medicare program. This provision has been replaced with a requirement that health care entities, with the exception of small providers, submit their claims to the Medicare program in electronic format. This requirement refinement significantly improves the bill and eliminates a tremendous burden for providers and the government. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been vetted extensively with the stakeholders in the health care system. It deserves everyone's vote and we should all be grateful for the fine work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) in the area. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) on behalf of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) be permitted to control 10 minutes of time on this side.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3323) to ensure that covered entities comply with the standards for electronic health care transactions and code sets adopted under part C of title XI of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, again my thanks to the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2441, sponsored by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. Baker). The National Hansen's Disease Programs has a long history of excellence, beginning with the humane treatment rather than detention of those with leprosy in the late 1800s, the development of the treatment for leprosy in the 1940s, and the current extension of research to tuberculosis and diabetes. It has been an important part of Louisiana's great history and this Nation's great history. Countless lives were changed in what many called the ``Miracle of Carville.'' In the 105th Congress, we passed a bill transferring ownership of the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center in Carville, Louisiana from the Department of Health and Human Services to the State of Louisiana and moving it to Baton Rouge. The NHDP has continued its fine work in Baton Rouge instead of Carville, but the Carville facility has retained the name the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center. As required by law, the new facility in Baton Rouge is also called the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center. You can imagine the confusion. The bill simply straightens out the confusion, to make sure the mail goes to the proper party, and changes the name of the NHDP to the National Hansen's Programs Center to eliminate that confusion. It has the support, by the way, of our good friend, former Congresswoman Long, who is Gillis' widow, and a dear friend of ours, and I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 60 honoring Maureen Reagan, and I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his extraordinary thoughtfulness and consideration in offering this resolution. This resolution speaks as well of Maureen Reagan as it does of its author, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his fine work as co-chair of the Alzheimer's task force and for the great work the gentleman has done for bringing attention to this issue. Maureen Reagan was a vivacious woman with a passion for life and family and country. She had a contagious enthusiasm, an unshakeable will for all of the interests that she pursued. She actively campaigned for her father, former President Ronald Reagan, and spent much energy in the 1980s fund-raising for Republican women who were seeking office. Although she was nationally recognized for her political activities and her commentary, it was her work for victims of Alzheimer's that brought the most attention to her life and perhaps her greatest contribution. When the disease silenced the great communicator, Maureen Reagan, who shared her father's knack for public speaking, became the national spokeswoman for the Alzheimer's Association, and her advocacy raised awareness of not only her father's condition, but also the 4 million Americans currently living with Alzheimer's. In the final years of her life she traveled the Nation nearly nonstop, ignoring her own failing health, to gather support for Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers. She was unwavering in her enthusiasm and optimism that a cure was close at hand and she made several appearances here before Congress, calling for increased Federal spending. Although Ms. Reagan did not live to see a cure for Alzheimer's, the national recognition of the disease and the resulting progress and research have much to do with her efforts. Just last week a report was issued that a single ibuprophen tablet taken each day can literally limit the onset and, in fact, diminish and decrease the onset of Alzheimer's disease. That kind of research is possible today, those breakthroughs, because of much of the work that she did. Her tireless commitment and campaign against Alzheimer's will serve as an inspiration for those who continue to fight this ghastly disease. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my dear friend, for his thoughtfulness and consideration in bringing this resolution forward, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. TAUZIN

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 H. Con. Res. 277.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 277, recognizing the important contributions of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The Hispanic community is booming in this country. In fact, it has become the fastest-growing segment of our Nation's population; and by the year 2010, Hispanics will become the largest minority group in the United States and by 2050 will comprise nearly 25 percent of the entire U.S. population. One sector within the Hispanic community that has been experiencing especially rapid growth over the past few years is the small business community. At present, it is estimated that there are over 1.5 million Hispanic-owned small businesses in the country. Created in 1979 by a handful of dedicated Hispanic leaders, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has helped to realize the enormous potential of the Hispanic business community in these United States, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has worked tirelessly to bring the issues of the Nation's Hispanic-owned businesses to the national economic agenda and drives the engine of economic growth. Today, we thank them for increasing their contribution to the strength of this country. It is a good resolution. My mother, Ms. Enola Martinez Tauzin, appreciates it personally; and I urge the House to adopt it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 90) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit telemarketers from interfering with the caller identification service of any person to whom a telephone solicitation is made, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 insert extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 90, the Know Your Caller Act, by my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), deals with the controversial business practice of telemarketing. There are thousands of reputable telemarketing companies and they provide a benefit to the public by offering a broad range of consumer products and business opportunities. These companies employ hundreds of thousands of citizens across this country and they fuel this economy with literally billions of dollars. Increasingly, however, telemarketers are the cause of complaints. Consumers are concerned that telemarketers are intruding into their homes, and we continue to hear stories about telemarketing schemes that separate consumers from their hard-earned money. In fact, telemarketing complaints lodged with the Federal Trade Commission seem to support these consumer concerns. In 1997, for example, there were 2,260 complaints. In 2000, there were 36,804 complaints, a significant increase. H.R. 90 takes these consumer complaints seriously. With the excellent work of the author, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), we can remove the cloak of secrecy that fraudulent telemarketers use to swindle their victims. No longer will telemarketers be able to hide behind the anonymous telephone call. H.R. 90 prohibits telemarketers from blocking the transmission of caller ID information. In addition, this bill requires telemarketers to send caller ID information if their equipment is capable to do so. What this means is that the flashing signals on caller ID boxes, ``caller unknown,'' or ``out of area'' will no longer protect the scam artist. The transmission of caller identification information is so important to consumers, not only for safety and privacy reasons, but also because it provides the consumer with a telephone number that can be used to place the consumer on what is known as a telemarketer's ``do-not-call'' list. You see, if you know who is calling you and you do not want them to call him again, under the law, you can put a call in and say do not call me anymore; I do not want to be bothered anymore. By being placed on a do-not-call list, the telemarketer is prohibited from calling back for the next 10 years. That will protect you for a while. Additionally, the bill takes steps to prevent the sale of do-not-call lists, which is currently allowed under the law. I have worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on bipartisan amendment efforts to clarify this point. To remedy this loophole, H.R. 90 prohibits telemarketers from selling, leasing or receiving anything of value for these do-not-call lists. Few things are more offensive than being asked to be placed on a do-not-call list, only to have your name sold to another direct mail company. This amendment respects and protects the privacy requests of the consumer and should prevent an increase in unwanted telephone solicitations. I believe this bill strikes a good balance between the consumers' right to privacy and safety and the telemarketers' legitimate business interests. It protects consumers as well as the very thriving commercial industry and, indeed, protects the good players from the bad consequences of bad actors. I support this bill and urge support from the House as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3391, the Medicare Regulatory Contracting Reform Act of 2001. The bill captures the best of two bills. The legislation reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means, and H.R. 3046, the Medicare RACER Act, which was reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It represents the diligent work of the many Members of Congress to make the Medicare program more flexible and less bureaucratic. It is also a shining example of what can be achieved when we have true bipartisan cooperation. Earlier this year, the Committee on Energy and Commerce began a project we called ``patients first.'' The idea was indeed to try to see if we could not reform the regulations and the burdens at CMS to indeed put patients first; to make sure that physicians and health care providers, who are forced to spend too much time filling out forms and trying to learn the rules of the road and the changing rules of the road, might in fact get some relief. Our committee held a number of hearings and we disseminated surveys to elicit input from beneficiaries and health care providers about the complexities of the Medicare program and its rules. We also brought together beneficiary groups, provider associations, and government officials to talk about regulatory relief. Because of the leadership particularly of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), we are standing here today with an opportunity to vote on legislation that will enable doctors to spend more of their time caring for patients, putting patients first, and putting in less time completing paperwork for the government and bureaucrats. The Toomey-Berkley Medicare RACER Act was successfully reported from the Subcommittee on Health, thanks to the dedication and commitment of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). It was also successfully reported out of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce. It requires contractors to provide general written responses to written inquiries from beneficiaries and health care providers within 45 business days, and it requires Medicare contractors to notify health care providers of problems that have been identified in a probe sample, and to alert providers as to the steps they should take to resolve the problems. Each of these improvements is significant and each of them has been included in the bill we are about to vote on today. And I wish to thank my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means for working so well with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and myself to consolidate the work of our two committees. Lord knows, we need to thank the staff who put in hours and hours and hours, late nights and weekends, to bring all this together. We worked to strike an appropriate balance between the need for regulatory relief and the government's obligation to protect taxpayer funds from waste, fraud, and abuse. This captures the hard work of both committees. It has broad support with the beneficiary groups, the health care community and, by the way, the administration. I urge my colleagues to join us in full support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and commend him for moving so expeditiously on this resolution, and also I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for her incredible work in this area and other areas. I understand she is also very similar, in moving a similar resolution on Crohn's Disease. Yesterday, in the Nation's capital, we had an amazing function of families across America gathering for the Cancer Research Family Awareness Luncheon. Sam Donaldson was here, himself a cancer survivor. The whole idea behind the luncheon was to honor those who have worked tirelessly to make people aware of what early detection can do to cure it. My mother is a three-time cancer survivor. In each case, because she caught it early, she was cured with operation rather than chemo or radiation, sort of a miracle. It started in 1960 with breast cancer; in 1980, then lung cancer; and, just recently, with uterine cancer. The fact that we make people aware of these diseases so that their doctors and moms and dads can spot them when we see them and treat them sooner makes immeasurable difference not only in the care and treatment of these diseases, but very often in life itself. Many cancer survivors were there to tell their stories yesterday about how, because someone took the trouble to talk about these diseases on television, on the radio, on the floor of the House today, somebody paid attention, somebody caught it early, and somebody was better off for it. Yesterday, for example, a young woman who is an anchor of a San Antonio, Texas television station was honored for the work she did. She discovered she had breast cancer. Instead of hiding the fact, she went on the air with it and actually did a documentary of how she went through treatment, and how they operated on the cancer and how she went through the incredible ordeal of the chemotherapy, losing her hair. She even did an anchor one night, bald, just to show that you can get through these things and you can live and you can survive if you are willing to be brave enough to face these diseases head-on and treat them early and deal with them. Here, in this case, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) has brought to us a concern of so many families, 50,000 families in America which have someone in their family with tuberous sclerosis. And here is another genetic disease that, if we pay enough attention to it, put a little research money on it, we will find a way to cure it and save an uncounted number of lives not only in America but around the world, and certainly make life much more comfortable and bearable for those who suffer with that disease today. Again, I want to congratulate my colleague from New York for her fine work, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health (Mr. Bilirakis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for their excellent cooperation in moving this and similar resolutions forward.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. 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. 717.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 717) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for research with respect to various forms of muscular dystrophy, including Duchenne, Becker, limb girdle, congenital, facioscapulohumeral, myotonic, oculopharyngeal, distal, and Emery- Dreifuss muscular dystrophies, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman for his extraordinary work in this area. Not only will this bill, because of his great work, authorize NIH to do extensive new research on Duchenne muscular dystrophy, but also other forms of childhood muscular dystrophy. What we have learned is when they do extensive research in these areas, very much of it is genetic research and that genetic research yields all sorts of information on other diseases, such as Friedreich's ataxia, which is a disease of my culture, the Cajun culture. We learn a great deal every time we do extensive research into these genetic disease areas and as the gentleman said, not only tens of thousands of parents whose children suffer with these disease, but countless tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of families who may get an answer to diseases comparable or similar to these may come out of this research. I want to thank the gentleman for his great work on it; and again, I think not only many families will receive this as a great Christmas gift, but future generations are going to be grateful for the work he has done on this bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Price- Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. Passage of this bill is critical to the future development of nuclear power. Nuclear power is essential for maintaining a balanced diversity of fuel sources to feed the Nation's growing electricity needs. This bill also includes several provisions that will strengthen physical security at nuclear power plants regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I would like to describe some of the actions that NRC has taken in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and also describe how this bill will help NRC and the Federal Government manage emerging threats at nuclear plants. The events of September 11 have necessitated a review of security at our Nation's 103 operating nuclear power reactors. The NRC is in the process of conducting a top-to-bottom review of the security at these reactors. The NRC is interacting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, other Federal law enforcement and intelligence organizations, the military, and the newly established Office of Homeland Security so that necessary changes to NRC's programs consider pertinent information from all relevant Federal agencies. In the process of this review, however, we should not unnecessarily cause fear among those who reside near these nuclear facilities. First, the Nation's 103 nuclear reactors are among the most hardened structures in the country. Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, in addition to objects propelled at great force into the structures. The NRC has in fact required that three nuclear power reactors be able to withstand certain aircraft strikes due, in part, to the location of those power reactors to airports or runways. The analysis of those reactors to withstand aircraft crashes did not result in design changes because the plants were already sufficiently hardened as a result of the design to protect them against natural and internal events. While nuclear power reactors are among the most strong and most secure facilities in the United States, they have not been specifically analyzed to consider attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s, and nuclear power plants were not specifically designed to withstand such crashes. This does not necessarily mean, however, that they are not capable of withstanding a strike, because in light of their inherent robustness, they may in fact prove capable. The NRC is appropriately evaluating ways to assess the effects of a deliberate aircraft impact and resulting fires and explosion on the reactor containment building and support structures. The NRC should conclude that study with all deliberate speed. The committee-reported bill contains several provisions pertaining to the security of nuclear power reactors. Congressman Markey, with the support of the committee chairman and ranking minority member, offered one nuclear safety amendment which directs the President, in consultation with the NRC and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and private entities, to conduct a study of nuclear facility security and to report to Congress on the study's findings within 270 days of the amendment's enactment. The President must classify threats as either an attack by ``an enemy of the United States'' or as ``the type of risks that NRC licensees should be responsible for guarding against.'' This study will address what is at heart a national question of policy: the role of the Federal Government with respect to nuclear facility security. It is meant to delineate those threats that should be the responsibility of the Federal Government and those threats that should be the responsibility of the nuclear industry. The Presidential study is to take into account not only the threats of September 11 and ``air-based threats,'' but also the potential for attacks my multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals; the potential for assistance is an attack from several persons employed at the facility; the potential for suicide attacks; and the potential for water-based threats, as well as other threats. The President must report to Congress on actions taken, or to be taken, to address the types of threats identified as ``enemy of the United States'' threats. Such ``enemy of the United States'' threats could very well include September 11-type attacks, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators. In preparing the report, the President will need to consider the defensive capabilities of private corporations and those of the government. The NRC must promulgate regulations addressing the threats the President identifies as the type of risks that NRC licensees should be responsible for guarding against. The NRC is required to update its regulations pertaining to the design basis threat (DBT), based, in part, on whether the President's study identifies new threats that conflict with the DBT as currently set forth in NRC regulations. It may be, however, that the majority of threats in the President's study are deemed to be ``enemy of the United States'' threats, and, in such cases, the NRC would not be required to expand its regulations in this area. The amendment also requires the NRC to establish a program to test the response of reactor personnel to mock attacks. The NRC must approve or design, observe and evaluate force-on-force exercises to determine whether the ability to defeat the design basis threat is being maintained. This provision gives the NRC flexibility to text and implement a Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) pilot program currently under development or to continue its current Operational Safety Response Evaluation (OSRE) program. As the committee report points out, the NRC must be active in the preparation of the testing program. The language, however, does not mandate the use of, or otherwise codify the existing OSRE program; nor does it prohibit the use of the SPA program. Rather, it gives the NRC the flexibility it needs to run a program of its own choosing, provided that the key elements specified in the bill are contained in the program. Statement of Administration Policy (this statement has been coordinated by omb with the concerned agencies) H.R. 2983--Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001 (Rep. Wilson (R) NM and 8 cosponsors) The Administration supports reauthorization of the Price- Anderson Act, which provides liability protection for government contractors and the nuclear industry and assures prompt and equitable compensation for the public in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident. The Administration commends the House for its efforts to extend Price-Anderson's important indemnification objectives. To assure the future of nuclear energy, liability coverage must continue for nuclear activities conducted by the Department of Energy and by licensees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of both. The Administration remains committed to enacting legislation that will reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act in its current form, and looks forward to working with Congress to improve provisions in the bill concerning financial accountability, safety, and security. The Administration hopes to work with Congress to ensure that the bill achieves its intended effect without detracting from the quality of potential contractors, fostering unnecessary regulations, or compromising security, anti-terrorism, or non-proliferation efforts.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, last week, Senator Hollings and I joined together to introduce legislation to emphasize the prohibition on foreign goverment ownership of American telecommunications and broadcast infrastructure. This is not a new concept. It has been the law for more than fifty years in order to protect the American national interest. We have been dismayed this year by the FCC's approval of the Deutsche Telekom acquisition of VoiceStream Wireless Communications and the SES- Astra acquisition of GE Americom Communications. For several years, we have repeatedly expressed the most serious reservations about the Commission's interpretation of the foreign government ownership provisions of Section 310 of the Communications Act. We have repeatedly pointed out that companies controlled by foreign governments are too often motivated by political considerations that may be against the interests of the United States rather than by the working of the competitive marketplace. Notwithstanding our stated concerns, the Commission approved the Deutsche Telekom acquisition of VoiceStream in April of this year, revealing the clear differences between the Congress and members of the Commission about the meaning and application of Section 310. The proposal of SES-Astra to acquire GE Americom presented the same concerns, and I asked the Commission to conduct a ``vigorous review;'' of the proposed acquisition to assure that our national interests were protected. However, instead of the vigorous review that was needed and requested, the Commission allowed the International Bureau to rapidly approve this significant acquisition in a pro forma manner. Indeed, once that approval had been given, SES-Astra revealed that it had not fully revealed the substantial extent of foreign control in the company, but the FCC staff again gave its prompt pro forma approval with no public notice. Commissioner Michael J. Copps issued a statement noting that SES- Astra's failure to reveal the full extent of its foreign ownership and stating that the Telecommunications Act required the FCC to provide the opportunity for public notice. We agree. We believe the Commission has exceeded its authority in this area and has not weighed fully the full national interest considerations in foreign government ownership of our telecommunications infrastructure, especially in the wake of recent events that have heightened our concerns about the security of our homeland. Accordingly, we introduced legislation to make it clear that foreign governments are not allowed to own or control American telecommunications, satellite, or broadcast networks, whether directly or indirectly. This legislation does not break new ground, but rather simply reaffirms, in no uncertain terms, that the telecommunications, broadcast, and Internet facilities that underlie our freedom of speech and our economy cannot be made vulnerable to the actions of foreign governments. We suggest that it serves neither the public interest nor the interest of the applicants for the FCC to approve any mergers of this type, or for that matter to allow the SES-Astra acquisition of GE Americom to go forward without the full Commission seriously addressing our concerns.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Michigan. First of all, the gentleman knows that he offered three amendments to the committee, two of which were accepted; and the gentleman voted for the bill in committee. On the last part, I want to make it clear to the House that current law section 502(n) and 301(z) in the regulations that interpret that law prohibit the marketing of exclusivity until the pediatric indication is on the label. That is the law today. What we do in this bill is go further. We make it a priority review on the pediatric indication, and we put a time certain after which it is misbranding if the pediatric indication is not on the label. The point I am making is that the problem the gentleman is concerned about is already covered in the law as a violation. A pharmaceutical company is prohibited under the law today to market a drug's exclusivity without the pediatric indication being on the label. That is, under current law, prohibited. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2887) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals for children, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for whom all of us share great sympathy and concern tonight as New York again experiences another tragedy.