Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

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

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to approve S. 632, the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act. This long-overdue legislation will provide a stable base of support for our Nation's threatened poison control centers and improve public education and awareness about these life-saving resources. This Senate bill is the companion measure to the legislation that I introduced with my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), in the last session of Congress. I am pleased to note that our bill enjoys strong bipartisan support, it has more than 130 cosponsors; and that the Senate bill, this bill, was approved by unanimous consent under the leadership of our Ohio friend, Senator Mike DeWine. Poison control centers provide vital, very cost-effective services to the American public. Each year more than 2 million poisonings are reported to poison control centers throughout the United States. More than 90 percent of these poisonings occur in the home, and more than 50 percent of poisoning victims are children under the age of 16. For every dollar spent on poison control center services, $7 in medical services are saved. But in spite of their obvious value, poison control centers are indeed in jeopardy. Historically, these centers were typically funded by the private and public sector hospitals where they were located. The transition to managed care, however, has resulted in a gradual erosion of the funding. As this funding source has been drying up, poison control centers have only partially been able to replace the support by cobbling together other State and local and private funding. The financial squeeze has forced many of the centers to curtail their poison prevention advisory services and their information and emergency activities and reduce the number of nurses, pharmacists, and physicians answering the emergency telephones. Currently, there are 73 centers. In 1978 there were 661. The Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act will provide up to $28 million each year over the next 5 years to provide a stable source of funding for these centers, to establish a national toll-free poison control hotline, and to improve public education on poisoning prevention and poison center services. The legislation is designed to ensure that these funds supplement, not supplant, other funding that the centers may be receiving and provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to impose a matching requirement. Further, to receive Federal funding, a center will have to be certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an organizational expert in the field of poison control designated by the Secretary. I want to recognize especially Senator DeWine's contribution and his leadership. In addition to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), his ranking member, for their interest and leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater pain or nightmare to watch a loved one suffer for something that we could cure. I can remember, as a new dad, buying those little gadgets and putting them on my cupboards in my kitchen to make sure that my daughter and my son would not be able to open those up and find the detergent and bleach and other things that might be in those cabinets. But despite that foresight, it is not 100 percent foolproof. And when these things happen, we have to make sure that every family across this great country has access to an 800 number where they can immediately reach out to someone who knows what to do when that tragedy might strike. That is what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. It provides that access so our kids and our loved ones can live. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is long overdue, and I look forward to its passage this evening. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 632) to provide assistance for poison prevention and to stabilize the funding of regional poison control centers.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 632.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of an issue that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and I when we have tried to lead on an issue have not reached out to each other and sought some partisan support. And I again appreciate that friendship and hard work. At the end of the day, at the end of this day, this Congress is going to follow through with what the Senate did and make sure that, in fact, these poison control centers are in place and that they are going to be funded. There is an old movie that I remember, ``Ghostbusters.'' Remember that? ``Who are you going to call? Ghostbusters.'' I am not going to sing it. But when a parent has a problem, particularly a parent, but it could be anybody, there has got to be a number that they can call, whether it is their cell phone in their pocket or the phone in their kitchen. And this bill does that. Because they do not have time, they do not have a lot of time to react when someone might be writhing on the floor with some substance that they might have ingested and they have no idea what to do, particularly as a non-physician, as most of us in this body are. This bill is going to save lives; and at the end of the day, it is going to save money too. I cannot think of a better promise to the American taxpayer, to the folks that we serve, as we have visited our day-care centers and we see those wonderful little kids that are playing. They cannot distinguish between a box of detergent and a box of cereal. They just know that it usually has got a pretty color. We have got to make sure that, in fact, their lives are going to be saved when they do something that they really should not do if they had had some parental involvement during that tragic moment. So again, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I would hope that we can pass it without any objections at all.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2130) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to add gamma hydroxybutyric acid and ketamine to the schedules of controlled substances, to provide for a national awareness campaign, and for other purposes.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act. As you may recall, the House initially approved this legislation last October on a vote of 423 to 1. This evening we will vote on this legislation as amended by the Senate, and if the legislation is approved, it will go straight to the President to be signed into law. The legislation we are considering today will amend the Controlled Substances Act to put GHB, a dangerous and sometimes fatal drug used to facilitate sexual assaults, in schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly regulated category of drugs with the strongest penalties for misuse. It will also clamp tight controls on GBL, a precursor to GHB that is itself being used to facilitate sexual assaults. This legislation is desperately needed. The abuse, trafficking, and diversion of GHB is rapidly increasing. The Drug Enforcement Administration has documented nearly 6,000 encounters of GHB. Deaths from the drug are escalating rapidly, from one in 1990 to 17 last year, for a total of 58 deaths. Emergency room episodes resulting from the use of the drug are also escalating rapidly, from 20 in 1992 to 762 in 1997, the last year for which data is available, for a total of more than 1,600 episodes. Sadly, these numbers are reflecting only the tip of an iceberg. GHB is difficult to detect, almost impossible, in the body, within a few hours of its being ingested. Many law enforcement officers and emergency room personnel are not trained to look for it. As an example, I heard from one source in Kansas City that they suspected thousands of date rape and drug abuse cases in the greater Kansas City region since 1993. The legislation before us was sparked by the death of two young, wonderful women, one in Texas and one in Michigan, whose drinks were spiked with GHB. Since then, five more women have died in Texas and another two in Michigan. We must act now before this tragic toll rises any further. The FDA has issued consumer warnings about products containing GBL, which converts to GHB, when ingested in dietary supplements, and has asked companies marketing products containing GBL to recall them. In August of last year the FDA sent a message to help professionals across the country, asking them to report adverse events associated with the consumption of these products. Since then, the agency has received 122 reports of serious adverse reactions, such as dangerously low respiration rates which may require intubation, unconsciousness, coma, seizures, irregular heartbeat, and yes, death. Just this last month, as you may have read, Phoenix Suns player Tom Gugliotta suffered a seizure that caused him to stop breathing after taking an over-the-counter herbal supplement containing GBL. Similarly, a 16-year-old Peoria, Illinois high school student collapsed during a school gym class after taking a product containing GBL. He lost consciousness, stopped breathing, and had to be resuscitated by paramedics. The Senate amended H.R. 2130 to further develop and strengthen the Department of Justice's focus on GHB and to provide for the development of forensic field tests for the detection of this substance. In all other respects, the Senate amendments have had the same effect as the legislation that we passed here in the House in October. I wish to express my appreciation for the help of so many of my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the help that they have given in getting us to this point, and for the leadership of the Senate, particularly Senator Abraham and Senator Hatch, in steering this legislation for Senate approval. This has been a bipartisan effort from day number one. With all my heart, as the father of a daughter and son, I ask that the House approve this legislation tonight and send it to the President. Let us do this for all of our sons and daughters, who are at grave risk so long as these substances are so readily available. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say with the passage of this bill tonight, we will certainly end a nightmare that no family ever wants to experience, whether it be in Texas, Michigan, California, or any of the other 50 States. I want to particularly commend the hard work and diligence of all Members on this legislation. It was about a year ago that our subcommittee first became involved in this, moving from the good work that had been done in the Committee on the Judiciary from a previous Congress. We quickly discovered that, in fact, the laws were too loose, the loopholes ought to be closed. Sadly, we still saw deaths even when that information became public. Mr. Speaker, these drugs are available on the Internet. It has to stop. This bill does that. I look forward to working with all Members tonight to make sure that this is passed and, obviously, with the administration as they have indicated that they are going to support this legislation as well.

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

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

Mr. UPTON. 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 matter on this legislation.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague and friend, Rep. Anna Eshoo, in introducing important consumer protection legislation. This legislation addresses the safety of medical devices which are designed to be used once but which are reprocessed for further use. In correspondence to Rep. Eshoo, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ``agrees that the reuse of disposable medical devices and devices labeled for a single use is a very important public health issue.'' The agency further indicates that cleaning and sterilizing these devices can be very difficult and that material properties and device performance can be affected by resterilization. Yet single use device reprocessors, which may be companies specializing in this practice or hospitals or other health care facilities, are unregulated. They are not required to register with the FDA or to provide convincing evidence that the processes they use are appropriate and that the reprocessed devices are safe and effective. Our legislation would correct this loophole in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by requiring single use device reprocessors to register with the FDA and to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of reprocessed devices. The bill will also require device users to obtain informed patient consent for the use of the device and establish a system whereby the safety and effectiveness of the devices when actually used in patient care may be tracked. I urge my colleagues to join me supporting this important consumer protection measure.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I would also like to ask my friend for sure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), that I would love to add his name as a cosponsor of our bill because in fact what it does is that it replaces section 110 with a feasibility study, and when and if a feasibility study could be proven that would work, we will be glad to take a look at it, but until then this section 110 will shut down traffic, particularly in the border that I know best, the Canadian-U.S. border. And as I have been a member of the U.S.-Canadian Interparliamentary Group the last number of years, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague who spoke in favor of my motion earlier tonight, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), a number of other Members, this is the number one issue. We know, our two countries know, that we cannot exist as we do today with the trade opportunities that both countries are having and have this section 110 come into place. Therefore, it needs to be refined in a major way, and that is why we are suggesting it be repealed. I would also thank my Senator, Spencer Abraham, the leader of this effort in the Senate. He has done a terrific job in making sure that that is passed, as my colleague from New York indicated, five times, I believe, by unanimous vote. My governor, John Engler, has led the effort of the National Governors Association in drafting this strong letter in support of what we are trying to do tonight and has certainly helped the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and lots of groups around the country that are very interested in this. At the end of the day here, we are going to be denied a vote on a procedural effort and that is sad, because I do believe that we could win on this issue had we been allowed to have a vote of the full House on this issue that would certainly be bipartisan. Though they have been able to have the vote in the Senate, we have not been able to have the vote in the House. Unless by some chance, as I look to my friend from Kentucky, they do not file today or tomorrow; we would love to have this vote. We have alerted the leadership that this cannot stand, that this has to be resolved, that we need a vote to repeal this. Again, I think our side can win. I would ask my colleagues to join me in instructing the conferees before they report this bill out to join with us in repealing section 110 and receding to the Senate.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this motion.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Colorado that in Michigan we have more traffic that crosses the Ambassador Bridge than goes to Japan in terms of exports, and in fact at the Ambassador Bridge some 24,000 vehicles cross that bridge every day, over a thousand vehicles an hour, and giving an optimistic estimate of about 2 minutes per border crossing if this system became implemented. It has been estimated that this would result in 17 hours of delay for every hour's worth of traffic. We cannot stand that, and the Midwest cannot stand that, and that is one of the reasons why we are pursuing this motion to instruct the conferees to try and repeal section 110 and allow a vote to do so.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to instruct. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). He has been a leader in this effort, helping to line up cosponsors in our effort to repeal this on our bill, more than 114, I believe, at this point. We certainly have appreciated his work on that side of the aisle and with our friends on this issue. We thank him for that time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice Committee on Appropriations and my friend and colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) as well for their willingness to try to work with us. I just want to say that the unintended consequences of section 110 is it will shut down the border. We have heard from virtually every business group that does trade, particularly in my home State of Michigan, with Canada, my friends in other States along that border, as well. I know that the President met with the Prime Minister of Canada just last week. This was the number one issue that they raised. We have heard from the U.S. Chamber. We have heard from the National Association of Manufacturers. We have heard from American truckers. We have heard from the American Association of Export and Importers. We have heard from the travel industry. We have heard from the National Governors Conference. And I just want to say in the letter that we received from many of the governors, they cite this: ``Although we support its objective to curb the illegal entry of aliens into our country, implementation of an entry-exit control mechanism as described by 110 will not only not solve the problem but it is also not feasible. Besides causing major delays in our land borders and disrupting legitimate cross-border traffic, such a control mechanism will also unnecessarily cause a significant disruption in economic development, international trade, and commerce tourism, and it requires sizable infrastructure investment. The global marketplace, driven by on-time delivery, will also be negatively impacted. Section 110 has the right intention but indeed it is the wrong approach.'' We have heard from a number of our border-crossing communities. They tell us it will take days, 2 or 3 days, for trucks to pass through these borders. Yes, it would be nice if we could think that there is going to be an automobile and we are going have the right card on it and go through the smart lane and register when it comes and goes. But who is to tell who is inside that vehicle, whether there are three people going across the border and what were their names, whether there were four people when they came back? It is a system that will cost billions of dollars; and if it is ever designed and fully implemented, it still will not work. We need a new approach. What we are suggesting here is that we repeal, for the time being, section 110. We will look at a feasible study. We will look at some alternative legislation down the road to replace it if and when it is ever ready. But this thing will shut down the border the way that it is now, and that is why in a vote in the Senate I think it was unanimous to get this thing repealed.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2670 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Upton moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2670 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 102 of the Senate amendment (relating to repeal of automated entry-exit control system).