Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in favor of S. 313, the Animal Drug User Fee Act (``ADUFA''), sponsored in the House by my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Upton. This legislation, modeled after the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), is designed to decrease the review time of new animal drugs at the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This legislation is essential to the health of pets and livestock, as well as food safety. CVM is currently experiencing sizable delays in its review of drug applications. These delays are problematic for CVM, drug sponsors, pet owners, veterinarians, and livestock producers. Simply put, the CVM needs an infusion of funds to address review shortcomings. The slowdown of the approval process threatens to reduce the tools available to livestock and poultry producers to produce vibrant stock and to combat animal disease. The slowdown of the approval process also threatens the health and well being of family pets and zoo animals. Further, delays at CVM have a chilling effect on the animal health industry's investment in important research and development, threatening the pipeline of new products. In conclusion, this is a very modest program, but one that is desperately needed. The pace of animal drug reviews has slowed in recent years and the FDA needs the proper resources to hire more reviewers. Please join me in supporting S. 313, The Animal Drug User Fee Act of 2003.

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me make the most important point here. Environmentalists for years have argued that we ought to have environmental laws that require the polluter to pay, that the polluter ought to be responsible for cleaning up his act and that the victims ought not be responsible for the actions of polluters. That is essentially what the EPA tried to do but was not allowed to do by the court and what we are trying to let the EPA do today. The polluter in this case is the upwind polluter, the victim is the downwind community. What the Clinton administration and Carol Browner tried to do was to create flexibility in the EPA so that the downwind community did not have to pay to clean up the pollution in the upwind community. In other words, to make sure that the upwind community cleaned up its act so that it did not dump pollution on an innocent victim community who might end up having to pay for it. So the idea was not to diminish the cleanliness of the air, it was not to exonerate anyone from their obligations to clean their air. It was certainly not to allow the air to stay dirty. It was all about requiring the upwind polluter to get their act together, to clean up their act, and then to be able to count that together with the work done by the downwind community to reach clean air attainment. Now, that is fair. Now, we have criticized the Clinton administration on this side many times for its action. In this case they were right. The EPA was right. The court, unfortunately, correctly, I think, said the EPA did not have the authority to do the right thing here. What we are trying to do in the conference is make sure EPA has the authority to do the right thing and to make sure that the polluter does pay, that the innocent community downwind does not have to sacrifice because they are being dumped on by some upwind community. Mr. Speaker, I urge this motion be defeated. Mr. Speaker, let me make one last point. I respect the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) so much. I hope she knows that. We are in a conference right now with the Senate. We are trying to fix this. This would be a terrible instruction. This would be a terrible instruction to every community in America that suffers because someone upwind of them is polluting their community. It would be a terrible instruction. What we want to do in the conference committee with the Senate, and I hope we finish that bill soon, is bring Members back a chance to pass an energy policy that does enforce the idea that the polluter should be responsible to clean up their act first. We are going to try to bring that back to Members. This instruction hurts us, even though it is nonbinding, and I would urge that we reject it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Johnson motion and urge my colleagues to vote against it. I don't think any Member would disagree that the Clean Air Act has been extremely beneficial to America's environment over the last three decades. But as with any complex regulatory statute of its kind, there are times when the letter of the law either leads to unintended consequences or can give rise to conflicting interpretations. This is precisely the situation that confronted the Clinton administration nearly a decade ago. In 1994, under the leadership of then-Administrator Carol Browner, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a regulatory interpretation of the Air Act that allowed for some flexibility in applying ozone nonattainment dates. EPA issued additional guidance several years later, under which, in limited circumstances, the Agency would extend dates for downwind areas that suffered from pollution transport. The EPA then applied this guidance on a discretionary basis through approval of various state implementation plans. Unfortunately,the courts threw out EPA's interpretations of the Air Act last year. So for the EPA's common-sense, flexible approach to nonattainment is to prevail across the country, Congress must codify it as part of the Clean Air Act. As we debate this motion tonight, it is by no means clear when we will be able to get an energy conference report to the House floor. And that's largely because conferees are continuing to negotiate a number of key provisions, including whether we should include the ``bump up'' codification. The motion before us is non-binding, Mr. Speaker. But I would not want for the House to be even symbolically constrained in its ability to negotiate with the other body, particularly when it comes to doing something like including a common-sense Clinton-era environmental regulation. I want to make clear to my colleagues that the Clinton-era policy on bump up does not let downwind areas off the hook. In order to qualify: (1) An area must be the victim of pollution transported from another area that significantly contributes to nonattainment in the downwind area; (2) EPA must approve a plan that complies with all requirements of the Clean Air Act that are currently applicable to the area--as well as includes any additional measures needed to reach attainment by the date for the upwind area; and (3) the extension of any date must provide for attainment of Clean Air Act standards ``as expeditiously as practicable,'' but in no case later than the time in which upwind controls are in place. The codification measure is fair and balanced. It prevents an unjust result--that a downwind area suffering from transported pollution is penalized for pollution that it does not generate. Many areas have made progress and are close to attaining--it makes no sense at this stage to impose additional penalties that will not advance attainment. In some cases, areas risk being classified as ``severe'' nonattainment even though they violated the 1 hour standard just a few times over 3 years and would otherwise be considered to be in ``marginal'' nonattainment. At the end of the day, the codification of the Clinton bump up policy may actually be the most pro-environment thing we can do because it provides for the best possible course to reach attainment. The sooner we have it in place--regardless of how it gets to the President's desk--the better for our constituents living in these areas. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the motion.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 567 I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, two and one-half years ago, Chairman Sensenbrenner and I agreed to work collectively to produce a database protection bill. Previous attempts at producing legislation resulted in various stalemates between the two Committees. When I took the gavel at Energy and Commerce and Chairman Sensenbrenner took over at the Judiciary Committee, we decided we would work through this issue in a different way. It has been a long process--it was no easy chore harmonizing a Judiciary-favored copyright approach and a Commerce- favored misappropriation approach. The two Committees have worked amicably towards the bill we are introducing today. This is a credit to the members on both Committees, and I have been delighted to see the cooperation and respect between our two Committees grow over the last few years. I would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, in particular, for his leadership and commitment through this process. This bill is one of compromise. Through the course of the negotiations, I won some issues and lost some issues. As we move forward in the legislative process, I will continue to invest time and effort to improve the legislation and ensure my lingering concerns are addressed. In doing so, my focus will remain on protecting the free flow of information so important to our information economy. I look forward to working with the Judiciary Committee, my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and all interested parties to improve this legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, let me again emphasize this is extraordinary. The court decision came out yesterday. The leadership of this House authorized this bill to the floor today. We are about to pass this bill, I believe the Senate is about to do the same thing, and, in all likelihood, we will have a bill on the President's desk this afternoon. This Congress has often been called a slow and cumbersome beast, but I think you can see how fast this Congress is prepared to move when 50 million Americans are angry, and I cannot imagine more anger now, when 50 million Americans found out the national do-not-call list was put in jeopardy by a single judge in Oklahoma somewhere.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, welcome to Groundhog Day, courtesy of a misguided court decision, soon to be overthrown, I believe, were we not acting today, but one that jeopardizes one of the most consumer-friendly regulations ever to come out of Washington in a long time. Just several months ago, President Bush signed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act into law. That law authorized the funding of the Federal Trade Commission's National Do-Not-Call registry, a concept so embraced by consumers in America that 50 million Americans have now signed up to be on that list since then. And, Mr. Speaker, Congress passes a law, and an agency then implements it. Nothing wrong, right? Wrong. One can imagine our surprise when we found out yesterday morning that a Federal court in Oklahoma, not California, Oklahoma, invalidated the FTC's do-not-call registry. And even more surprising was the judge's basis for the decision. He found the FTC did not have the statutory authority to create a national do-not-call list. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I mentioned in February of this year, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. Obviously, Congress would not have funded something that it thought was unauthorized. Indeed, back in 1994, Congress passed the Telemarketing Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, which gave the FTC power to regulate abusive telemarketing practices. Certainly, allowing consumers to sign up for a do-not-call list, to essentially opt out of an abusive telemarketing practice, is well within the mandate given to the FTC. Make no mistake. The judge in this case is dead wrong, and I am sure his decision will, in turn, be overturned. In an abundance of caution, however, and I make perfectly clear to any and all who may have doubts, today we consider H.R. 3161. This bill specifically authorizes the FTC to create a national do-not-call list and explicitly ratifies the FTC's actions over the past year to implement that list. We should probably call the bill ``This Time We Really Mean It Act'' to cure any myopia in the judicial branch. The bill leaves no doubt as to the intent of Congress. The FTC wants this list. The President of the United States wants this list, and more importantly, 50 million Americans, who are growing impatient about being interrupted at mealtime by unwanted and unnecessary harassing telemarketing calls, want this list. And this Congress is going to make sure they have this list today. Every consumer should have the right to choose whom they want to talk to. We allow consumers to opt out of junk mail. All they have to do is go down to the post office and tell the Postal Service they do not want junk mail coming to their house, and it does not come. They can choose not to answer a knock at the door. They can decide who enters their house and who communicates with them there. Consumers ought to have the power to say ``no'' to unwelcomed and unwanted telemarketing calls. Families ought to have the right to enjoy a little time together at the end of a day and no longer come home to find their answering machines jam filled with telemarketing calls. Worst of all, they get that call and answer it, and there is nobody there. These new devices that rotary dial three, four, five, maybe 20 people at a time and the first one who answers, they hang up on all the rest, those are the worst to me. Americans are signing up to end that kind of abusive practice, and we need to give the FTC clear authority. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on our committee and the dean of our House, because he and I have promised to do everything in our power to make sure that the do-not-call list becomes a reality, and he is here with me today to make sure we pass this bill. Less than 1 week from today, on October 1, 2003, we hope to give Americans access to precisely what they have been asking for, a national do-not-call list, and today we are effectively hanging up on the telemarketers who have been bothering me at that precious hour of the day.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the bill (H.R. 3161) to ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the senior gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In summation, let me again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their extraordinary bipartisan cooperation in moving this as rapidly as we have. It is the sort of cooperation we always seem to get from our members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Energy and Commerce when we have a problem that clearly faces our country that is neither Democrat nor Republican, but is American. This is an American problem, and we are solving it as Americans in this House, and that is always a proud moment in this House when that occurs. I want to thank my colleagues for all of the courtesies and the help that we have gotten in moving this legislation forward. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was correct in complimenting the chairman of the FTC, Mr. Muris. I want to also join in that compliment. The Federal Trade Commission, as the gentleman knows, took on what the FCC would not take on. We had originally given this authority to the Federal Communications Commission which declined to put together a national do-not-call list. Mr. Muris and the Federal Trade Commission decided to go forward with it with our help. So we authorized the money for them to proceed with the list. Only this judge seems to want to stand in the way of it, and this Congress now makes it very clear today that we want to give Americans this right. I want to make a public apology. These harassing phone calls that come to us in the middle of the precious time we have with our family have gotten to a point of, I know, such aggravation that some of us react very badly to a call we get at a most inappropriate moment, and sometimes we are pretty ugly to a telemarketer who is bothering us or interrupting us. I hung up on the Ambassador's wife from Norway one day, thinking she was a telemarketer. She belongs to an international club with my wife, and we had to make great apologies afterwards because I thought I was being harassed by a telemarketer. Those sorts of things ought not happen in America. We ought not be caught in these awful circumstances where we are so aggravated that we are impolite to someone as important as an Ambassador's wife who was trying to make a call to my wife, and I apologize both to my wife and to her again publicly for my impatience. But Americans are impatient, and they are tired of this kind of problem, and they want it fixed; and this legislation will fix it today. We have heard some of the passion on this floor. The passion that we feel about this issue is the passion that Americans feel about this issue. When 50 million Americans sign up as fast as they have, that tells us how passionately Americans feel about a national do-not- call list, and it is time to be implemented.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to do something very unusual on the House floor. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) knows, every now and then, we are accused of voting for bills we have not totally read. I am going to read the whole bill. I want all the judges of America to pay close attention. I want you to tune in good. Turn up the volume a little bit and turn off your telephone and listen real carefully, because I am going to read the whole bill to you. Every judge in America, here it comes: ``(a) AUTHORITY. The Federal Trade Commission is authorized under section 3(a)3(A) of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(A)(3)(A)) to implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry.'' Do you hear me? To implement and enforce a do-not-call registry. ``(b) RATIFICATION. The do-not-call registry provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, (16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), which was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003, is ratified.'' Did you hear me, judges? Ratified. When this bill passes today, when the Senate does the same thing, none of you judges ought to have any doubt. We really mean it, do you understand? We really mean it. We want the national do-not-call list to become law on October 1. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Massachusetts for his compliments and, most importantly, for his extraordinary long- standing support for actions to protect consumers in America, and this is just one more step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for those comments. In fact, we have been asked so many times, is this a free-speech issue. The United States Constitution gives you the right to speak; it does not give you the right to be heard. None of us have an obligation to listen if we do not want to. As a courtesy, we listen to one another in this House, hopefully we do, but nobody has an obligation to listen. The fact that Americans have the right not to be bothered by some speech they do not want to listen to is a right we ought to protect too. That is what we do today.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can only tell the gentleman it was an embarrassing moment and, again, I apologize to both of them. But the gentleman knows we have heard this bill in committee, and he knows how absolutely aggravated people get with these calls. They seem to come at the worst moment. When you are just leaving the house, you are trying to get everything in the car and the phone rings, it could be your mother calling, your daughter, your son, somebody important; and you rush back in and it is one of these doggone calls. They always come at the exact wrong moment. I am not saying telemarketers are bad people. There are many good telemarketing firms, and for folks who want to receive these calls and take advantage of them, they will have that right under the bill. But it is just going to end the ones we do not want, the ones that aggravate us to the point where we do something as stupid as I did, for which I have apologized today a few times.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the House will unanimously pass a bi- partisan bill, H.R. 2854, which will dramatically improve uninsured children's access to health care. This bill reflects a compromise negotiated with the other Chamber, which is supported by Senators Grassley and Baucus, along with Health Subcommittee Chairman Mike Bilirakis, and Ranking Members John Dingell and Sherrod Brown. H.R. 2854 will provide states with $2.7 billion to fund their SCHIP programs. The State Child Health Insurance Program is an extremely successful program that has enabled states to provide health coverage to over 5 million previously uninsured children. Under SCHIP each states gets a specified annual allotment of Federal dollars to be used to pay for children's health care, which the state can draw on for up to three years. Due to initial delays that many states encountered in establishing their SCHIP programs, significant percentages of several states' allotments from fiscal years 1998 through 2001 have gone unused. H.R. 2854 will allow these states to retain a portion of these funds to enable them to provide additional coverage to uninsured children. Under H.R. 2954, states will be able to retain fiscal year 1998 and 1999 reallocated funds through the end of fiscal year 2004 and allows states to retain 50 percent of their unspent allotments for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. In addition, the bill also allows ten states that had been unable to spend all of their SCHIP allotments because of high Medicaid income eligibility levels to use up to 20 percent of their SCHIP allotments to pay for providing coverage for eligible children.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. That was a wonderful speech, but what was not very clear and should be made clear is that enforceable reliability standards are in the House bill that was passed in this House 254 to 175, with 40 Democrat votes joining us and we passed it. It is in the Senate bill. It is already in the conference. We passed it last April. Secondly, I want to remind my friend this is not the end of the conference. This is the first year of a 2-year Congress. We are going to get this bill done in the next few weeks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), my friend, a great gentleman from the Northeast, who knows a lot about energy because he is on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce from the Northwest.