Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Furse amendment. I would hope for a moment we could get beyond the matter of accusations and look at a few facts. The first is that the Oregon Health Sciences Center has cooperated with the Committee on Science at every turn. They have submitted detailed responses to committee questions with respect to earmarks. The president of the university has been available to the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Science. The fact is that the university has cooperated in every respect with the Committee on Science. Now, these funds have been obligated. Contracts have been let. Expenses are being met on a monthly basis with the expectation of the Department of Energy providing promised grant moneys. It now becomes simply a matter of fairness to ensure that the obligations under this contract are met. [[Page H 9853]] The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has been absolutely correct in talking about the extraordinary potential of telemedicine. As our friend, the chairman of the health committee, notes, telemedicine is the medicine of the future. So this program that is being pioneered at the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center dollar for dollar is going to produce a return across this country. To consider that, after the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center has cooperated in an aboveboard fashion with the committee at every step along the way, the obligation has essentially been incurred by the Federal Government; the potential of the telemedicine is extraordinary. To then come and rupture the good work that has been done strikes me as a tragedy, not just for the country, but for the Nation. Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis would support the excellent amendment of the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]. It has implications for bringing this country together, urban and rural areas across the Nation, across our State, and I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to repeat again that the university has cooperated with the Committee on Science at every step. They have returned detailed responses. The university president has been available to the committee at every step along the way. The University of Oregon Health Sciences Center has cooperated.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding, because I suspect this debate is closing. Mr. Chairman, the Furse amendment is not a referendum on earmarks. A lot of us on a bipartisan basis have reservations, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has said, about the earmarking concept. What we are concerned about is when a university does cooperate with the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Science, does things in an above the board way, and incurs these obligations, it is a great mistake to then in effect tear up all of that good work which has the potential to serve the country. This is not a referendum on earmarks. This is a question of fairness for a particular university that has cooperated with the Congress in a bipartisan way.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, the Department of Energy has been one of the pioneers in the research field. That is what this is all about. The Oregon Health Sciences Center is on the cutting edge of future medical technology.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the Department of Energy is involved in a variety of important research. Much of this interfaces between communications and health and a number of related agencies.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] who has also worked hard in this area.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his kindness. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that the reason that this approach rather than the Senate approach is important is our plan allows us to help American families today. Under our approach and the speed at which these technologies are advancing, the marketplace is going to give parents the tools they need while the Federal Communications Commission is out there cranking out rules about proposed rulemaking programs. Their approach is going to set back the effort to help our families. Our approach allows us to help American families today.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her comments, and we will certainly take this up with some of the private-sector firms that are working in this area.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Cox-Wyden amendment. In beginning, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for the chance to work with him. I think we all come here because we are most interested in policy issues, and the opportunity I have had to work with the gentleman from California has really been a special pleasure, and I want to thank him for it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], our ranking minority member, for the many courtesies he has shown, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and, as always, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] have been very helpful and cooperative on this effort. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Internet is the shining star of the information age, and Government censors must not be allowed to spoil its promise. We are all against smut and pornography, and, as the parents of two small computer-literate children, my wife and I have seen our kids find their way into these chat rooms that make their middle-aged parents cringe. So let us all stipulate right at the outset the importance of protecting our kids and going to the issue of the best way to do it. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I are here to say that we believe that parents and families are better suited to guard the portals of cyberspace and protect our children than our Government bureaucrats. Parents can get relief now from the smut on the Internet by making a quick trip to the neighborhood computer store where they can purchase reasonably priced software that blocks out the pornography on the Internet. I brought some of this technology to the floor, a couple of the products that are reasonably priced and available, simply to make clear to our colleagues that it is possible for our parents now to child-proof the family computer with these products available in the private sector. Now what the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I have proposed does stand in sharp contrast to the work of the other body. They seek there to try to put in place the Government rather than the private sector about this task of trying to define indecent communications and protecting our kids. In my view that approach, the approach of the other body, will essentially involve the Federal Government spending vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected. The fact of the matter is that the Internet operates worldwide, and not even a Federal Internet censorship army would give our Government the power to keep offensive material out of the hands of children who use the new interactive media, and I would say to my colleagues that, if there is this kind of Federal Internet censorship army that somehow the other body seems to favor, it is going to make the Keystone Cops look like crackerjack crime-fighter. Mr. Chairman, the new media is simply different. We have the opportunity to build a 21st century policy for the Internet employing the technologies and the creativity designed by the private sector. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and myself, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. There is, Mr. Chairman. Although I am not in opposition to this amendment, I would ask unanimous consent to have the extra time because of the many Members who would like to speak on it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the real story of this bill is that it is punishing those in the dawn of life, our children, and those in the twilight of life, our senior citizens. In the case of the elderly, if this bill passes in its present form, our Nation better get out the ambulances. At a time when our aging population is growing so rapidly, this bill hits 16 key programs for the elderly that are a lifeline for our seniors. It eliminates programs like the elderly abuse program at a time when elderly abuse has gone up 94 percent over the last 5 years. These are seniors that are being physically abused. They are being exploited. They are in a position where they cannot defend themselves and, yet, this Congress eliminates that program. The same is true of the long-term care ombudsman program, a program that provides an early warning signal to seniors that are being abused in long-term care. Let us not do this. We have supported those programs in the past on a bipartisan basis. Let us keep them strong for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for their many courtesies shown to me with respect to the provisions I am going to discuss, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], who have been exceptionally patient. I take this floor first to talk as the father of two young computer literate children who use the Internet. As a parent, I and other parents want to make sure that our youngsters do not get access to the kind of smut and pornography and offensive material that we now see so often on the Internet. Tomorrow, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I, who have worked together in a bipartisan way, will offer an amendment based on a very simple premise. Our view is that the private sector is in the best position to guard the portals of cyberspace and to protect our children. In the U.S, Senate, they have somehow come up with the idea that our country should have a Federal Internet censorship army designed to try to police what comes over the Internet. I would say to our colleagues, and, again, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I have worked very closely together, that this idea of a Federal Internet censorship army would make the keystone cops look like Cracker Jack crime fighters. I look forward, along with Mr. Cox, to discussing this more in detail with our colleagues tomorrow. Second, Mr. Chairman, and very briefly, I would like to discuss an issue of enormous importance to westerners, and that is the problem with service in the U S West service territory. We learned today, for example, that there has been a 47 percent increase in delayed new service orders in the west. These are problems with waits for phone repairs, busy signals at the business offices, inaccurate information provided by company customer representatives. An amendment I was able to offer, with again the help of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], stipulates that local telephone companies have to meet certain service conditions as a factor prior to entering the long-distance market. This is a measure that will be of enormous benefit in the fastest growing part of our country, the U S West service territory. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleagues and the leadership on both sides for their patience. Mr. Chairman, as telecommunications companies enter new fields, we must ensure current customers are not discarded and left without basic phone needs. The drive to streamline and downsize has subjected local telephone customers in my region of the country to poor customer service. During Commerce Committee consideration of this legislation, I added a provision dealing with customer service standards. My amendment is in section 244 of the bill which outlines the conditions that local telephone companies must meet prior to entering the long distance market. My amendment will give state utility commissions additional leverage to pressure the local phone companies to meet established customer service standards and requirements. Local telephone customers complain vociferously about long waits for telephone repairs, busy signals at business offices, and inaccurate information provided by company customer representatives. Just today, the Associated Press ran a story detailing customer service woes in the Pacific Northwest. According to the story, delayed new-service orders have increased 47 percent just this year. Across the West, more than 3,500 orders for new telephone service have been delayed in excess of 30 days. I ask that several articles addressing this situation be printed in the Record. Additionally, I submit a letter from Oregon Public Utilities Commissioner Joan Smith be included for the Record. [From the Associated Press, Aug. 2, 1995] Utility Regulators Question Held Orders--Consolidation Link (By Sandy Shore) Denver.-- U S West Communications Inc.'s delayed new- service orders have increased 47 percent this year, and utility regulators blame it partially on the company's consolidated engineering operations. Joan H. Smith, chairwoman of the utility Regional Oversight Committee, said her panel identified two common problems contributing to the delays. ``The committee speculates that it is the removal of engineers from each state and the current centralization of engineering services in Denver that are causing the problems,'' she said in a June 9 letter to Scott McClellan of U S West. U S West spokesman Dave Banks said the consolidation did not cause the problems. ``The intent of going through the re-engineering effort is to do just the opposite of what regulators might be saying,'' he said. ``I think the problem is more of a result of the fact that we haven't been able to complete our re-engineering process in total yet.'' For more than a year, U S West has battled customer-service problems, ranging from persistent busy signals at business offices to delays of months and, in some cases years, in filing new-service orders. The company has said the problems were caused by unprecedented growth in the Rockies, which occurred as it launched a re-engineering program to consolidate work centers, cut jobs and upgrade equipment. As part of that re-engineering, U S West last month opened the Network Reliability Center in Littleton, which houses employees and equipment needed to monitor the 14-state telephone network. In a June 30 letter to Smith, Mary E. Olson, a U S West vice president in network infrastructure, said the major cause of engineering delays has been the company's inability to readily access updated records on the network plant. The company hopes to complete mechanization of that information by year-end, she said. When the consolidation occurred, Olson said many engineers declined to transfer, which caused some delays, but the center is 95 percent staffed. At the end of June, U S West had 3,588 held orders new- service requests delayed more than 30 days. That compared with 4,406 at the end of June 1994; 1,797 in January and 2,443 in March. The largest increase occurred in Utah, where held orders reached 422 at the end of June, up from 197 in June 1994. Increases also were reported in Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah and Washington. Held orders decreased in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wyoming. U S West exceeded its company goal of answering within 20 seconds at least 80 percent of the calls to residential telephone service office. It answered within 20 seconds 75.5 percent of the calls for residential repairs; 79.9 percent of for business repairs; and 72 percent to business service offices. The regulators also have seen an increase in delayed repair orders and an increase in consumer complaints across U S West's 14-state region. ``Held orders are the biggest problems,'' said Montana regulator Bob Rowe. ``Some of the problems concerning access to the customer-service centers have seen some real improvements.'' Banks of U S West said, ``We're not exactly where we want to be, but again, June is a much busier season for us.'' The numbers ``are basically going to be higher in the summer months because we have much more demand for service,'' he said. U S West spokesman Duane Cooke the company has scheduled 250 major construction projects in Utah this year and increased its capital improvement project to nearly $100 million to offset the problems. It is kind of ironic because the re-engineering process designed to improve customer service in the short-term has aggravated the situation,'' he said. ``But, now we're starting to see the benefits of re-engineering.'' For example, the consolidated engineering group can complete work on a major construction project in three months to four months, compared with a year to 18 months previously.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the authors of this appropriations bill should call their legislation the Barefoot and Pregnant Act of 1995. I must say that I find this appropriations bill particularly odd because so many of our colleagues have talked about citizen empowerment throughout this Congress. Well, cutting family planning takes power from women because it strips them of their most personal choice, the right to plan their own family. Cut family planning and it will be harder to achieve our national goals of reducing the number of abortions and encouraging more personal responsibility. Cut family planning, and our Nation takes another step towards two-tiered medicine, where the wealthy can get access to the services they need and the poor go without. Support the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood]. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk for a few minutes about the critically important public health issue of keeping America's youngsters from beginning to smoke. This is a public health problem that is growing. Three thousand youngsters in our country every day start smoking and eventually 1,000 of those kids will die of smoking- related illnesses. Most importantly, this is a public health problem that is getting worse. Last week, we learned the tragic news based on a study from the University of Michigan that smoking among eighth graders is up 30 percent in our country. Until recently, there have been two options for dealing with all this. One was to regulate tobacco through the Food and Drug Administration. Last year, I asked each of the tobacco executives whether they believed nicotine was addictive. Each one of them said, no, but they are clearly wrong. Tobacco is addictive. It has drug-like properties, and the evidence is in that the Food and Drug Administration has the legal authority to regulate the product. Unfortunately, if this option is chosen, if the FDA chooses to regulate tobacco, what will happen is the tobacco companies will go to court, they will sue and we will lose another generation of our children to political gridlock and infighting. So I and other Members of Congress believe that it is time to explore other options. In exploring these options, let us try to set aside the politics that rage about this issue and do what is best for our children. Some of my colleagues say that if the FDA does not regulate tobacco, that would be good for the South, particularly Democrats in the South. Other colleagues say that if the FDA regulates tobacco, even if nothing gets done, that will be good for the President because the President is taking on tobacco. Both of those views, in my opinion, do a disservice to our Nation's children. Tobacco kills, but gridlock kills also. So for that reason, I and Congressman Rose of North Carolina have suggested another approach. We believe it is worth exploring the concept of the Federal Government entering into a written, binding, legal agreement between the tobacco companies and the Federal Government to take dramatic, immediate measures to stop young people from smoking. We are talking about banning vending machines from where children congregate. We are discussing banning advertising targeted at young people, and most importantly, at a time when the Federal Government is cutting funds from health and social services, we are talking about the tobacco companies putting up at least $100 million for the States to have tough enforcement of the laws banning sales to minors and public education efforts to stop young people from smoking. Most particularly, I believe that this agreement cannot be voluntary. It would have to be legally binding, and if at any point the tobacco companies breached the agreement, then the Food and Drug Administration would go forward and regulate tobacco. Mr. Speaker, the interests of children has to be our top priority. If there is more gridlock and more political infighting, the tobacco companies can surely hold off FDA regulation to the point where President Clinton is no longer in office. They have deep pockets for lawsuits, and I know personally, because they have taken me and one of our colleagues, Mr. Waxman to court over our efforts to make sure that the health of our young people is protected. Now is the time to act in the interests of our children. Tobacco kills, but so does gridlock. Let us act quickly to protect our children.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the 179 Members of this body who signed on to my letter asking Speaker Gingrich to preserve the Legal Services Corporation [LSC]. Additionally, I would like to thank those Members--Amo Houghton, Stephen Horn, David Skaggs, Howard Berman, Jack Reed, and Connie Morella, among others--who personally talked to other Members of Congress to help stave off further cuts to the Legal Services Corporation. Legal services is literally the last line of defense against destitution for many deserving Americans. Last year, LSC-funded programs provided assistance to over 50,000 women seeking protection against abusive spouses, 240,000 elderly seeking help ranging from fraud to Medicare, 2,600 veterans seeking help with veteran's benefits, and 9,000 abused and neglected children. There are many in this country who would find themselves trapped in disastrous often life-threatening situations were it not for legal services attorneys. I would also like to make several points about the contention that the private bar could somehow replace legal services attorneys. I began my career in public service running the Oregon Legal Services Program for the elderly. I came away from my experience with a strong belief that there is a critical role for the private sector to play in providing legal assistance to the poor. During the time I worked with Legal Services, I organized hundreds of private attorneys to assist in expanding access to the courts for [[Page E 1543]] the elderly. Today, 250 private attorneys donate time to the senior law centers in Oregon. In Portland last year, these attorneys donated 1,640 hours. More than 1,000 lawyers in Oregon, and 130,000 lawyers nationwide participate in pro bono activities organized by legal services programs. However, I know most of the attorneys I worked with would agree that in spite of their hard work, they could not even begin to fill the shoes of the legal services attorneys who could give full time attention to the problems of seniors. The American Bar Association estimates that less than 20 percent of the legal needs of the poor are met. Even with current funding and massive involvement by the private sector, LSC-funded programs are forced to turn away 43 percent of eligible clients. Most legal aid programs turn away women in divorce cases unless they are in danger of their lives from an abuser, and they turn away eviction cases unless the family will go homeless. Second, the legal problems of the poor, and in my experience, particularly the poor elderly, often require a depth of expertise and a time commitment that is rarely available on a pro bono basis by private attorneys. Cases that legal service lawyers take up for older Americans range from navigating the bureaucratic maze of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to working through problems with consumer fraud, age discrimination, pension income, property assessments, and wills and probate. The fact of the matter about legal services is that in most communities they are the only knowledgeable advocate for poor people who find themselves up against a convoluted Federal bureaucracy or abusive members of their family or community. For every anecdote about a legal services attorney taking up a questionable case, there are a thousand where they helped a poor person just get a fair shake. Again, I would like to thank the many Members of Congress who recognized the importance of legal services in ensuring this country provides equal justice for all, and fought to ensure the continuance of this program. The Members who signed onto my letter are the following: Stephen Horn, Amo Houghton, Frank Pallone, Jim Moran, Tim Johnston, Miller, Barbara-Rose Collins, Sherrod Brown, Mike Ward, John Spratt, Jose Serrano, Dick Gephardt, Sam Gibbons, Robert Toricelli, Robert Menendez, Louis Stokes, Ronald Dellums, Charles Rangel, Charles Schumer, Owen Pickett, Harold Ford, Nita Lowey, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Sam Farr, Andy Jacobs, Elizabeth Furse, Howard Berman, John Baldacci, Rick Boucher, Bobby Rush, Bob Clement, Bobby Scott, Jim Fox, Peter Torkildsen, John Edward Porter, Glen Poshard, James Leach, Alan Mollohan, Jerry Costello, Jim Chapman, Karen Thurman, Bruce Vento, Martin Frost, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Nancy Johnson, Maxine Waters, Michael Forbes, Albert Wynn, Corrine Brown, Sherwood Boehlert, John Dingell, Robert Matsui, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Cynthia McKinney, Jack Quinn, Earl Hilliard, Sanford, Bishop, Rick Lazio, Marcy Kaptur, Steven Schiff, Floyd Flake, Scotty Baesler, Tony Beilenson, Anna Eshoo, Earl Pomeroy, Gary Ackerman, Carolyn Maloney, Tim Roemer, Martin Olav Sabo, John Olver, William Clay, Zoe Lofgren, Eva Clayton, Cardiss Collins, Ben Cardin, Barney Frank, Rosa DeLauro, Bob Borski, Sidney Yates, L.F. Payne, Eliot L. Engel, Louise Slaughter, Steny Hoyer, Karen McCarthy, Dale Kildee, Neil Abercrombie, Bob Filner, Peter Deutsch, Tom Foglietta, Peter DeFazio, Richard Neal, Patsy Mink, Lynn Rivers, James Traficant, Bill Luther, Nick Rahall, Paul McHale, Jane Harman, Henry Gonzalez, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chaka Fattah, Carrie P. Meek, John Lewis, Pete Peterson, William Coyne, Harry Johnston, Pete Stark, Norm Dicks, Pat Williams, David Bonior, Vic Fazio, Robert Andrews, William Jefferson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Peter Visclosky, Bart Stupak, Maurice Hinchey, Jack Reed, Paul Kanjorsky, Martin Meehan, Norman Mineta, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Thomas Barrett, Jerrold Nadler, Bill Richardson, Esteban Torres, Bernard Sanders, Lloyd Doggett, Thomas Sawyer, Tony Hall, Ken Bentsen, David Skaggs, Harold Volkmer, Gerald Kleczka, Norman Sisisky, Ed Pastor, Sam Gejdenson, James Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Wise, Luis Gutierrez, Kweisi Mfume, Jim McDermott, Ron Coleman, Barbara Kennelly, Melvin Watt, Patrick Kennedy, Xavier Becerra, George Brown, Alcee Hastings, Chet Edwards, Lynn Woolsey, Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, Walter Tucker, Dick Durbin, Pat Schroeder, Gerry Studds, Tom Manton, Ed Towns, Major Owens, Julian Dixon, John Bryant, Lane Evans, Jim Oberstar, Joe Kennedy, David Minge, Nydia Velazquez, Lee Hamilton, Connie Morella, Frank Riggs, Solomon Ortiz, Frank Tejeda, Ray Thornton, Donald Payne, Christopher Shays, Ben Thompson, Blanche Lincoln. In addition, Representative Hal Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, made clear early on that he would not support the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation and for that, and for his patience and kindness, we are grateful.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible way to oppose this amendment. The FDA needs reform, and I have introduced the first comprehensive bill in this session to get that reform. But make no mistake about it, the Bunning amendment would cripple the safety mission of the Food and Drug Administration. My colleagues, let me say I know of no major industry group in our country that wants to go as far as the Bunning amendment. The biotechnology industry, which we have so much hope for in the 21st century, is certainly not going to want to cut all of this funding. The device industry, which also shows such great promise, does not want to go this far. The pharmaceutical industry does not want to go this far. They all believe that the Food and Drug Administration needs reform. We can do that on a bipartisan basis, but let us not turn back the clock, let us not play Russian roulette, with the safety of the America public. Vote no on the Bunning amendment.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, first, I wanted to say to the gentleman from Indiana that I appreciate the way he has addressed this issue. It seems to me that all Members should want to see more dollars devoted to the drug approval process and less to bureaucracy, and I think we can agree on that on a bipartisan basis. We do need comprehensive FDA reforms. I have introduced legislation towards this end. I know a number of our colleagues have as well. We ought to be pushing for tighter time lines to get products out, save money, save time, and on this matter of off-label drug uses, I think we can come up with a policy that ends FDA's censorship over important medical journal articles and at the same time protects consumers. For example, what I have proposed is we say that these journal articles would be made available, but the FDA, if they found questions in a journal article, would be in a position to add additional information so this would supplement what was out in a journal article. This, I found, has been acceptable to industry. It has been acceptable to the cancer groups that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has correctly discussed. This is the kind of constructive work we can do on a bipartisan basis. I want to tell the gentleman from Indiana, I am very pleased that he has kept his amendment on the question of freezing front-office dollars.