[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8695-H8696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
         PROPOSAL BY FDA AND EPA TO BAN MEASURED-DOSE INHALANTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the 
Members and Members outside of this Chamber a proposal by the FDA and 
EPA to ban measured-dose inhalants which contain CFC's, or 
chlorofluorocarbons, that are used by people suffering from asthma.
  Now, clearly, the goal of the FDA and EPA is laudable. They want to 
remove CFC's from all products in order to protect the ozone. But let 
us start with the basic premise that, first and foremost, the measured-
dose inhalants contribute insignificantly to the problem.
  But let us also stress, the need for these is so great, 30 million 
Americans suffer from asthma. CFC's are able to propel the medication 
necessary to help a struggling asthmatic sustain life, receive that 
important breath, and go on living a reasonably healthy life.
  In 1999, through the Montreal protocol, the EPA and FDA wanted to 
start removing from the list products that are currently available to 
substitute one item that currently is on the market. Clearly, we expect 
further research to indicate that there will be options and 
alternatives.
  What we are asking in a bill that I have filed is that the EPA and 
FDA report back to the Congress with a wide range of options available 
for asthmatics so that they can find products suitable to solve their 
medical emergency when necessary. Currently there are over 70 types of 
inhalants available on the marketplace.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], 
testified that he uses three different types of inhalants during the 
day that help provide life-sustaining breath to his lungs. I was an 
asthmatic as a child and suffered greatly when I tried to strive for 
breath.
  These products are not contributing to the problems in the ozone. I 
talked to Dr. C. Everett Koop on Friday, and he clearly indicates that 
this is the wrong approach by the FDA and EPA, that this is not the 
problem.
  Now, I applaud them for banning refrigerators with CFC's, air 
conditioning compressors with CFC's, hair spray and underarm deodorants 
that were polluting the air because of the excess of 
chlorofluorocarbons. But an asthma inhaler pumps the measured dose into 
the system and does not leach it out into the air. It is not something 
you waste. It is not something you spray. It is something you ingest, 
inhale into the lungs, to gain greater capacity.
  So I urge my colleagues to support me in this initiative and urge the 
Speaker to consider this initiative to allow us to have those agencies 
report back when there are adequate amounts of materials available that 
can clearly be CFC-free but also provide the needed relief for patients 
around our country, clearly a policy decision being made that has the 
right intentions but has

[[Page H8696]]

devastating consequences to those that suffer from asthma.
  Thirty million Americans suffer from asthma. Thirty million Americans 
will not find comfort in knowing that they are only allowed to use one 
inhalant. Right now, the one on the market, to some people, does not 
contain enough propellant to bring the medication into the lungs.


                Congress Should Not Spend Budget Surplus

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to discuss quickly is 
Alan Greenspan's testimony today that Congress should not spend budget 
surplus. And I agree.
  To get our fiscal house in order, we have got a $5.3 trillion debt, 
we should be reducing the deficit, reducing the outlay that we are 
spending on interest on the debt alone, finding ways to reduce that so 
we will then free up capital that is now being spent on interest to 
help the needed projects in America, the road construction and other 
things.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and several 
of my colleagues have cosponsored his measure that would allocate 
additional increases or surpluses, 1 percent of those surpluses to 
Social Security Trust Fund restoration, Highway Trust Fund restoration, 
and, more importantly, reduction of the debt. That would bring us into 
a balance, if you will, allowing us to use legitimate business 
principles.
  When we have debt, we reduce debt, it frees up capital to spend on 
other programs. It is very simple, very common sense. And it probably 
will fail in this city, because people like to spend more than they 
have, because they are used to it.
  We clearly feel that Mr. Greenspan's testimony today indicates that 
we have significant benefits from running some surpluses. There is 
nothing wrong with running a surplus. We tell all Americans to save for 
a rainy day. We tell all Americans they should have a surplus in their 
checking account. We tell businesses that if they are profitable and 
have excess revenues, that they are a great thing, an American 
institution. Only in this building do we consider spending more than we 
take in. Excellent advice that we should spread around the world.
  Five point three trillion dollars in debt, incurring about $265 
billion in spending on interest alone on the debt, and not reducing it 
by a nickel. So if we are to get our fiscal house in order, we need to 
start now.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________