H 5686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

body of case law that has grown up in

this area we are apt to do very serious

damage if we let this bill go through

without dealing with this issue and

trying to educate Members with this

issue.

The problem that I have is I am not

on the committee so I do not know how

I get recognized. There is a whole hour

and 45 minutes left with any number of

Members on the committee that have

not even had their amendments recognized. And when the hour and 45 minutes goes, boom, the hammer comes

down, that is it, vote on the bill, it is

out of here.

I just am very, very shocked that we

have so soon forgotten our pledge to

have open rules, and I think in the area

of foreign affairs we have had open

rules every time I remember. I know

the distinguished gentleman from

Maryland [Mr. HOYER] has a very critical amendment that he would like to

offer that is on the front pages of every

newspaper. I probably disagree with

him on how I would vote, but I think

he has the right to offer it, and I just

find it very surprising that we are not

going to permit that, and in an hour

and 45 minutes tomorrow that is it, we

are done.

Maybe on this globe we may have all

sorts of global issues discussion, there

may be all sorts of different things

that were not dealt with; they fall off

the table and we adjourn.

I just think the American people

should be more than aware that there

is a lot of talk about open rules, but I

have not seen one in a long time.

I am going to ask the gentleman

from Maryland, has he seen any open

rules wandering around this Chamber

anywhere?

Mr. HOYER. I have not seen any open

rules, if the gentlewoman will yield,

that really give open debate, and that

is the issue. The gentlewoman mentions the 6 hours of debate or the hour

and 45 minutes. The tragedy for the

American public and for the House of

Representatives is that of that hour

and 45 minutes, 45 minutes to an hour

may be taken up in simply voting, no

debate, no consideration, no thoughtful

exchange of ideas as to what is good

and bad policy.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is

absolutely correct. It is a very sad day.

M

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.

ORELLA). Under a previous order of

fthe House, the gentleman from California [Mr. RIGGS] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. RIGGS addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]

LIFE EXTENDING AND LIFE

SAVING DRUG ACT

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FOX] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam

Speaker, as was aptly described by Carl

B. Feldbaum, president of the BioTech

Industry Organization, ‘‘Life-saving

new drugs do take too long to reach

the people who need them.’’

From my district in Montgomery

County, PA, I have heard many a compelling story from constituents with

cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, epilepsy,

or AIDS who speak of the difficulties in

accessing the medicines they need because the approval process in our country is so prolonged and, in effect, they

have to turn to other countries where

the products are available.

Don’t get me wrong. The Food and

Drug Administration serves a valuable

purpose in maintaining high safety and

efficacy standards. However, it is important to note that the FDA’s actions

directly affect the lives of patients and

the ability of physicians to provide

state-of-the-art care for their patients.

In addition, the FDA regulates businesses that produce 25 percent of America’s gross national product, so the

Agency’s actions also impact our country’s economic well-being. The pharmaceutical industry is an excellent example. The United States leads the

world in discovering new drugs yet, all

too often, these drugs are available

overseas first. The United States is far

and away the world leader in biotechnology, but many biotechnology

firms are moving clinical trials overseas because of red tape imposed on

them by the FDA. These are very troubling trends that do not bode well for

the economic future of the United

States, or for the economic future of

Pennsylvania.

In my 13th Congressional District of

Pennsylvania alone, we have 10 facilities of 4 major pharmaceutical companies. Together, these facilities employ

more than 11,000 people. I would not

want to see any of these constituents

lose their jobs because FDA regulation

is prompting companies to conduct

some of their work overseas.

Americans want safe medicines. They

want a strong FDA that will keep unsafe products off the market but, I believe, they want to see more emphasis

on the value of giving patients quicker

access to safe and effective new medicines. That is why, today, I am introducing the Life Extending and Life

Saving Drug Act. We need to take action as soon as possible for the great

benefit of this Nation’s patients, physicians, and our emerging industry. I

look forward to working with my colleagues to act quickly on this critical

piece of legislation.

THE TIMBER AMENDMENT IN THE

RESCISSIONS BILL

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. TAYLOR] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, today the President of

the United States vetoed the rescission

bill that had been worked on for many

weeks in this Congress by the House

and the Senate and then in conference,

and in that rescission package were

many things that I think are important to the Nation, but one thing that

was very important for forest health

was the timber salvage amendment.

The salvage amendment called for increasing forest health by allowing and

actually requiring the Forest Service

to get rid of the large portion of the

dead and dying and deceased timber in

our national forests.

We have several problems in the national forests. First of all there have

been billions of board feet, there are

somewhere between 20 and 30 billion

board feet that are dead and dying in

the forest that need to be taken out.

The dead trees in the West are accumulating so fast that forest fires are not

only burning along the ground as they

once did, they are now burning to high

degrees because of the buildup of dead

and dying timber that has already accumulated in the forests. They reach

temperatures of over 2000 degrees. They

bake the land, charcoal runs over in

the streams, it makes it almost impossible to come back and reforest in

those areas. Many thousands of acres

have been blown down through wind

damage. These are also hard to reforest, to return to forest health.

Insects and disease in our national

forests are not only consuming parts of

our national forests but they are moving over into private lands. Most

silviculturalists recognize the only way

to stop the insect-infested movements

is to destroy the tree, take out the host

tree, either burn it or use it if you can

get to it early enough, remove it so

that there is not the location for the

insects to move on year after year.

We know all of this because we have

over 100 years of silviculture at our disposal, both from our best universities

that have taught forestry going back

almost 100 years when the first school

of forestry started in this country. We

know it from numerous experimental

stations that we have, both private,

Federal, and State and at university

centers. We know it because

silviculture is a science that is taught

and studied and is probably one of the

best informed sciences that we have because we have been studying for over

100 years in this area now.

With all of this accumulated knowledge we allow special interest groups in

Washington to take in hundreds of millions of dollars, scaring people with

misinformation, bad science, and pandering to politicians. The President has

bought their message, hook, line, and

sinker, because according to a Wall

Street Journal story about the polling

of the environmental organizations in

Washington, we find that over 93 percent voted for Mr. Clinton. They are

primarily far left. The report also

showed that they are contrary in most

of the things they report to the actual

science that we know in these areas.