[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4371-4372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 11, 1999

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my Consumer Protection 
Package--consisting of two pieces of legislation which will benefit 
consumers by repealing federal regulations. The first piece of 
legislation, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act, stops the Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers' access to 
truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to 
make informed choices about their health. The second bill, the 
Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which 
interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired 
television programming.
  The Consumer Health Free Speech Act accomplishes its goal by making 
two simple changes in the Food and Drug Act. First, it adds the six 
words ``other than foods, including dietary supplements'' to the 
statutory definition of ``drug,'' thus allowing food and dietary 
supplement producers to provide consumers with more information 
regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go 
through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. 
This bill does not affect the FDA's jurisdiction over those who make 
false claims about their products.
  Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has 
demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe 
and effective in preventing or mitigating many

[[Page 4372]]

diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented 
statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result 
is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve 
their health. Just last year, the FDA dragged manufacturers of 
Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful 
in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the 
benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers 
access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturers did not 
submit Cholestin to the FDA's drug approval process!
  The FDA's treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an 
isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though 
coronary heart disease is the nation's number-one killer, the FDA 
waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how 
consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber 
from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart 
disease! The Consumer Health Free Speech Act ends this breakfast table 
censorship.
  The bill's second provision prevents the FDA's arbitrary removal of a 
product from the marketplace, absent finding a dietary supplement 
``presents a significant and unreasonable risk of illness or injury.'' 
Current law allows the FDA to remove a supplement if it prevents a 
``significant or unreasonable'' risk of disease. This standard has 
allowed the FDA to easily remove a targeted herb or dietary supplement 
since every food, herb, or dietary supplement contains some risk to at 
least a few sensitive or allergic persons. Under this bill, the FDA 
will maintain its ability to remove products from the marketplace under 
an expedited process if they determine the product causes an ``imminent 
danger.''
  Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits 
of foods and dietary supplements will help America's consumers improve 
their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it 
is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging 
freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.
  My second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal 
regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail 
themselves of desired television programming. For the last several 
weeks, congressional offices have been flooded with calls from rural 
satellite TV customers who are upset because their satellite service 
providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain 
network television programs.
  In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and 
affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted 
an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making 
certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for 
which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program 
creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, 
of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with 
interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been 
granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government 
has previously intervened to invalidate ``exclusive dealings'' 
contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and 
program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price 
setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated 
the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make 
their programs available to cable and satellite programming service 
providers.
  It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of 
Congress to ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by 
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right 
to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' However, operating a 
clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in 
the name of setting a just price or ``instilling competition'' via 
``central planning'' seems not to be an economically prudent nor 
justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one 
best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
  Government's attempt to set the just price for satellite programming 
outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has 
resulted in competition among service providers for government 
privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free 
market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite 
programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty 
distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming 
for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service 
providers making local network affiliate's programs available to nearby 
satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and 
allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with 
program owners for programming desired by satellite service 
subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able 
to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest 
network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major 
stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place 
between network program owners and satellite service providers.
  Mr. Speaker, these two bills take a step toward restoring the right 
of free speech in the marketplace and restoring the American consumer's 
control over the means by which they cast their ``dollar votes.'' In a 
free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent 
people from receiving information enabling them to make informed 
decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat 
certain foods. The federal government should also not interfere with a 
consumer's ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable 
television on the free market. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take 
a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Consumer Protection 
Package: the Consumer Health Free Speech Act and the Television 
Consumer Freedom Act.

                          ____________________