[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9670-H9680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4461, 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 617 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 617

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 617 is a rule providing for the 
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4461, the 
agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall 
be considered as read.
  I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule, which provides for 
the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4461, the 
agriculture appropriations bill. I believe the conference report 
represents a good overall package. It provides important funds 
desperately needed by America's farmers.
  For instance, the bill includes $3.5 billion in emergency disaster 
relief funds for farmers. Just last week, I was able to tour severely 
flooded areas in my district with FEMA Director Witt and saw the extent 
of the over $200 million worth of crop losses just in agricultural 
South Florida due to the heavy rains.

                              {time}  1345

  The devastation underscored to me how critically important disaster 
assistance can be to our farmers. The main bill is a good product from 
an agricultural perspective. It provides $80 billion in mandatory and 
discretionary spending while setting aside $5 billion to reduce the 
public debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that portions of the Hunger Relief Act are 
included. As an original cosponsor of that important legislation to 
help poor families, children and the elderly have adequate access to 
hunger assistance programs, I believe that the legislation takes an 
important step in the right direction by including it in the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several of my colleagues for their 
tireless efforts in helping negotiate a carefully crafted compromise on 
the issue of sanctions: the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) worked throughout the process with 
me, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my dear 
friend, to achieve a fair compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority 
leader, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), the majority whip, 
for their support, as well as the Senate majority leader and Senator 
Mack.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank some of the staff 
who contributed to these successful negotiations, especially Scott 
Palmer, Julianne Carter, Nancy Dorn, Steve Vermillion, Ylem Poblette, 
and Steve Rademaker.
  The compromise authorizes sales of United States agricultural 
commodities to the Cuban regime; but without American financing, it 
also makes clear that the President cannot expand travel categories and 
accompanying revenues to totalitarian Cuba beyond the existing ones.
  In other words, the primary objective of the Cuban dictatorship that 
the United States taxpayers subsidize the regime, in effect taking the 
place of the former Soviet Union, is not permitted. Nor can the Cuban 
dictatorship dump its agricultural products on the United States 
market, to the serious detriment of American farmers. That dumping, by 
the way, Mr. Speaker, is another fundamental goal of the Cuban regime.
  At the same time, the Cuban dictatorship after this legislation will 
no longer have the excuse with regard to the great food shortages that 
it has created for the Cuban people while foreign tourists and the 
regime's hierarchy have access to all the luxuries that dollars can 
buy. It will no longer have the excuse of a legal inability to purchase 
American agricultural products.
  Mr. Speaker, so while United States farmers look at new markets under 
this legislation, especially in other countries dealt with by the 
agreement, key pressure and leverage are maintained for a democratic 
transition in Cuba.
  The agreement takes note of the floor votes regarding Cuba policy by 
the House and Senate in the recent past: the votes regarding 
agricultural sales to Cuba; the differing votes in the House and Senate 
with regard to travel, the Senate having voted against U.S. 
unrestricted travel to Communist Cuba, and the strong vote against 
totally dismantling the U.S. embargo on the Cuban dictatorship by this 
House on July 20 of this year.
  The essential framework of the United States policy toward Cuba that 
sanctions will be maintained until the political prisoners are freed, 
labor unions and the press are legalized, and free elections are agreed 
to, is left in place in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we need not even look to the myriad lessons of history, 
though we certainly could, for proof of the wisdom of that policy. As 
we speak today, sanctions are being lifted against Yugoslavia, 
including travel restrictions, because, and only after, the 
dictatorship there held elections and agreed to recognize the winner of 
those elections.
  Sooner or later, but mark my words, inevitably, freedom will come to 
the long-suffering island of Cuba as well, and the free men and women 
of the free and democratic republic of Cuba will wish to do business 
with those who choose to stand alongside them for freedom and did not 
collaborate with the totalitarian dictatorship.
  I hope the House and Senate will pass this legislation to help our 
farmers. All eyes will then be on the Clinton-Gore administration. Will 
the President sign this conference report to help American farmers 
despite the opposition of the Castro dictatorship? I certainly hope 
that he does.
  Mr. Speaker, I will let the appropriators speak to the other issues 
included in the conference report, but I do wish to strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, not too very long ago, this House 
passed two very forward-thinking amendments. One would have lifted the 
American embargo on food and medicine going to Cuba. It passed the 
House by a vote of 301-116. The other would have allowed American 
citizens to travel to Cuba. Mr. Speaker, that passed the House 232-186.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody has heard about them since. I have been to Cuba. 
I have seen the pain of the Cuban people. I have seen the children in 
Cuba suffer

[[Page H9671]]

for lack of simple medical devices. Senior citizens in Cuba grow frail 
far sooner than they should for lack of modern medicine. Meanwhile, we 
in the United States have the world's best doctors, best hospitals, 
best researchers.
  We should be sharing those discoveries with our Cuban neighbors 
because it is the right thing to do, not denying them because we oppose 
Fidel Castro's policies.
  But this conference report will not let us do that. Mr. Speaker, this 
conference report subverts the will of the vast majority of the House, 
because the Republican leadership disapproves. The Republican 
leadership also apparently disapproves of allowing American citizens 
the right to travel freely.
  Mr. Speaker the way it stands now, American citizens are allowed to 
travel to Iran. American citizens can go to North Korea, but they are 
not allowed to travel just 90 miles away from this country to a country 
that is no threat to us in any way.
  I believe that this is an unjustified denial of Americans' liberty. I 
believe American citizens are the best kind of diplomats in the world, 
and our government should get out of the travel agency business and let 
them go where they want.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership disagrees. This 
conference report codifies travel restrictions on Cuba which will make 
it harder for future administrations to allow Americans to travel to 
that island. This, too, despite a vote to the contrary.
  So despite the overwhelming votes in the House, the Republican 
leadership has made sure we continue that effective ban on food and 
medicine to Cuba and prevent Americans from traveling there.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, they put politics before people, and not 
only in Cuba. Despite the high costs of prescription drugs and the 
great opportunity before us, this bill will do virtually nothing, 
nothing to lower drug prices for the people right here in the United 
States. It is riddled with so many loopholes. Mr. Speaker, I am 
surprised that there is anything left of it at all.
  Today's New York Times directly quotes a drug lobbyist saying, and I 
quote, ``I doubt anyone will realize a penny of savings from this 
legislation.''
  In fact, this conference report enables drug companies to choke off 
the supply of low-price foreign drugs to American consumers who are out 
there looking for that break.
  Mr. Speaker, American seniors pay about $1,100 a year for their 
medicine. In order to pay the bills, some of them have to choose 
between paying rent, heating their homes, buying food or actually 
getting their medicine; and that is why I am urging my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
make in order the Democratic plan to allow access to the supply of 
lowest-cost medications that meet American safety standards.
  Mr. Speaker, drug prices are far too high in the United States, and 
we need to do something about it. Now is our chance, so I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the previous question and oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from south Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my very good friend and 
distinguished colleague.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart), my colleague, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the agricultural 
appropriations conference report. The sanctions language in this bill 
is the result of a long and painstaking process, one which would not 
have been possible without the participation and support of those in 
leadership who, from the onset, committed themselves to a final product 
which would meet the expectations of both sides of this very hot 
debate.
  While the language in this conference report makes changes to 
existing law, it does so without undermining U.S. foreign policy or 
national security priorities regarding the Castro regime, nor America's 
commitment to freedom and democracy for the enslaved Cuban people. By 
maintaining the licensing requirements and the review process, the 
provision acknowledges the Cuban dictatorship's support for global 
terrorism and guerrilla insurgents who seek to overthrow the 
legitimate, democratically elected governments in the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Mr. Speaker, it underscores the Castro regime's espionage activities 
against the United States; its coordination of and direct involvement 
in drug trafficking into the U.S.; and its murder of U.S. citizens.
  By prohibiting U.S. financing, credits, guarantees and bartering, the 
sanctions provisions in this bill acknowledge the lawlessness and the 
corruption that pervades the Communist system implemented by Fidel 
Castro and the totalitarian nature of a regime which controls all 
sectors of the Cuban economy, the government, and society as a whole.
  These prohibitions underscore the dictatorship's inability to pay its 
debt. For example, the regime owes over $11 billion of debt to Western 
governments and $300 million in back payments owed to oil suppliers. 
This is just the microcosm of a much larger endemic problem.
  As a result, the financing prohibitions in this bill protect the 
American taxpayers from bailing out Castro. It allows for agricultural 
trade with the regime, but on a cash-only basis, thereby saving our 
constituents from loan defaults and failed investments.
  Mr. Speaker, by prohibiting imports from Cuba, it protects America's 
farmers from dumping, from other illegal trading practices, from 
contamination and infestation, from a regime which repeatedly ignores 
its commitments under global trade pacts which it has already signed.
  More importantly, the sanctions provisions in this bill reiterate the 
historic and long-standing commitment of the United States Congress in 
support of freedom and democracy for the long-suffering Cuban people. 
By denying the Castro regime access to hard currency and U.S. financial 
institutions, it helps ensure that the U.S. does not become an 
accomplice to the continued subjugation and enslavement of the Cuban 
people; that the U.S. does not directly contribute to the coffers of 
this totalitarian regime.
  As a result, the sanctions provision acknowledges that the Castro 
regime has been repeatedly cited by our own State Department as one of 
the worst violators of human rights in the world and condemned by both 
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American 
Commission on Human Rights for its systematic, ongoing violations of 
the basic rights of its citizens.
  This is a regime which persecutes and imprisons its citizens. It 
tortures them. It denies them food and medical attention. It forces 
them to rot in squalid jail cells, because these people have the 
courage to demand that their rights be heard, that their rights as 
human citizens be respected, to demand that their civil liberties be 
respected and upheld, to demand freedom, to call for free and 
democratic multiparty elections where they will be able to participate 
in determining Cuba's future.

                              {time}  1400

  This is a dictatorship which has been condemned by the OAS Special 
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression precisely for its blatant 
disregard for the rights of the Cuban people.
  For those of us who have experienced firsthand what it means to live 
under the brutal Castro regime, the debate about whether to allow 
agricultural sales to Cuba was a gut-wrenching one.
  However, the legislative process is founded upon men and women of 
principles reaching an agreement on issues, a compromise that will 
promote American interests here and abroad. This bill, Mr. Speaker, 
accomplishes this goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the 
conference report; and reiterating the words of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), I would also like to thank the people on our 
side of the aisle who helped in fashioning this agreement: The 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt).

[[Page H9672]]

  Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill sends a strong message to the Cuban 
people that we in the United States Congress stand by their side and 
not by their regime.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, 
today is a very sorry day for the American people. It is a sorry day 
because a small group opposed to the will of this House and the will of 
the other body have struck a deal among themselves depriving the 
American people access to Cuba.
  This bill will loosen restrictions on the commercial sale of food and 
medicines to the governments of North Korea, Libya, Sudan and Iran, but 
Cuba is treated differently. When it comes to Cuba, our farmers and 
medical companies will have to find financing, not through American 
banks, but through third country financial institutions.
  This makes it far more likely that Cuba will continue to be forced to 
purchase food, other agricultural products, medicines and medical 
devices from other countries. It all but guarantees that small and 
medium-sized American farmers will not be competitive in a Cuban 
market.
  The Cuba provision in this bill hurts American farmers, it hurts 
American bankers, and it is an insult to the American people. This bill 
also codifies current restrictions on travel to Cuba.
  Should this President or the next President want to extend travel 
licenses for universities to set up exchange programs from the current 
2-year license to 3 years, he will have to ask Congress.
  Should this President or the next one want to allow Cuban-American 
families to travel to Cuba three times a year instead of the current 
once-a-year permit, he will have to ask Congress.
  Should this President or the next one decide all Americans should 
have the freedom to travel wherever they choose, he will have to ask 
Congress.
  But wait a minute. Congress has already spoken on these issues. Three 
hundred one Members of this House voted to lift the restrictions on the 
sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Two hundred thirty-two Members of 
this House voted to end the sanctions on travel to Cuba.
  So who needs to be asked? Not Congress. Just a handful of Members who 
still cling to the 40-year-old failed Cold War policy of the past.
  Mr. Speaker, the Cuba provision in this bill ensures that the 
American people, the very best ambassadors of American values and 
ideals, will be banned by their own Congress from traveling just 90 
miles off our shore. That is a disgrace.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and demand that this bill 
reflect the true will of this House and the will of the American 
people.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) how many speakers he has on his side that wish to speak.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) that we have many speakers. We have very many 
speakers. In fact, all our time is given out.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality of the matter is that, first of all, as I 
stated in my statement previously, there is a difference of opinion 
with regard to the travel issue. By the way, the travel issue was 
brought to the floor here on a limitation amendment, not a substantive 
amendment, a limitation amendment.
  Yet even assuming that that was an amendment wherein or whereby the 
House spoke, there was not a limitation amendment, but a substantive 
amendment before the Senate, a different result. So it is important 
that it be brought out that there is a difference of opinion with 
regard to that issue in recent votes between the House and Senate.
  With regard to the examples brought out about academics and others 
being able to travel, that is under the current restrictions, under the 
current regulations permitted. So what is not permitted under this 
legislation is an expansion of further travel and initiative with the 
purpose of the most immediate, what would constitute the most immediate 
generator of hard currency for the regime.
  It is estimated that massive American tourism would produce up to $5 
billion a year for the Cuban regime. Right now we are in a situation 
where, if my distinguished colleagues would read the wires, for 
example, with regard to the very little coverage that there is of the 
internal situation of Cuba, there is a crackdown as we speak against 
dissidents and other peaceful pro-democracy activists in Cuba. There 
are sentences being handed out of 15 years or 10 years as we speak. So 
is this the moment, then, to expand accepted gestures towards the 
regime.
  Now, we are saying to the farmers, you can go and sell if Castro 
pays, but the U.S. taxpayer is not going to. The U.S. taxpayer is not 
going to finance Castro. No, no, no. For that, there is no consensus. 
There is no majority here, I can assure my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the 
U.S. taxpayer financing substituting for the Soviet Union, no. That is 
not something that American farmers want. They want to be able to go 
and compete, but they do not want Castro and his regime of thugs to be 
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. No. That is not the issue.
  Now, some in this Congress would like that. Some in this Congress 
would like the U.S. taxpayer to become the new Soviet Union and 
subsidize Castro, but that is not what the American people want.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule to 
consider the Agriculture conference report. My specific concern is with 
the reimportation language. As it stands, it is nothing more than a 
Trojan horse.
  Seniors in my congressional district have asked me time and time 
again to do something about the skyrocketing prices of prescription 
drugs. This has certainly been a priority for me, and it has definitely 
been a priority for Democrats.
  Sadly, there are some for whom this is not a priority such as those 
who replace the bipartisan reimportation compromise with a watered down 
version. These people are going to leave seniors to pay the price for 
their indifference.
  The Democratic pharmaceutical reimportation plan is safe, effective, 
and keeps savings in the pockets of our seniors and out of the pockets 
of the pharmaceutical industry. The current version does not.
  Our plan allows broad access to supply the lowest cost medications 
that meet U.S. safety standards. The current version does not.
  Our plan is designed for a lifetime. The current version is not. I 
urge my colleagues in the House vote no on the rule to consider the 
Agriculture conference report. Because of the prescription drug 
reimportation language is just that, language.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 23 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the drug reimportation provision in this 
bill is a sham. The provision the Republicans are now proposing is 
riddled with loopholes that will render its passage virtually 
meaningless.
  First of all, it includes a sunset clause. After 5 years, the 
proposal is phased out. Second, under this sham proposal, if 
manufacturers use foreign language labels or any labels that fail to 
meet FDA specifications, the drugs will not be eligible for 
reimportation.
  The Republican leadership also included a third loophole for the 
pharmaceutical industry's protections that allows drug companies to 
enter into restrictive contracts with foreign distributors that prevent 
such distributors from reselling pharmaceuticals to American pharmacies 
and wholesalers.
  This is business as usual for our seniors, which means price gouging 
and price discrimination.
  Under the Democratic proposal, every Medicare beneficiary will have 
the option of enrolling in the prescription drug benefit plan that, not 
only is affordable, but will guarantee access to

[[Page H9673]]

all medically necessary drugs and provide coverage for catastrophic 
drug costs. These are the types of measures that we should be 
considering today.
  Stop this fraud from being perpetrated on our seniors. Vote no on 
this rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time on this well-constructed rule. I rise in strong 
support of the rule and of the bill.
  The work that the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on 
Appropriations has done under the leadership of the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Chairman Skeen) I think is a strong work product, and they are 
to be commended.
  This was a very difficult bill, loaded up with a lot of extraneous 
issues that really are not specifically appropriations issues. But, 
nonetheless, the committee took on the challenge.
  I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that we provided $3.5 
billion in emergency relief to our farmers, including the farmers in 
the dairy industry that have suffered for so long with such low prices. 
This will provide them with some stability in the marketplace and 
enable them to continue on a very difficult course of producing milk 
and making profit.
  The same goes to our apple producers who have never had the benefit 
of this sort of support before from the Congress. I think it is 
landmark legislation in that we have provided these emergency funds. 
Many of the apple State legislators, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and others 
worked very, very hard to include this hundred million dollars plus 
funding.
  We have also, Mr. Speaker, changed the rules on the Hunger Relief 
Act, the food stamp requirements. I think this is a very important 
minor fix to some of the reforms that an earlier Congress had 
endeavored to pass. To reduce the overall cost of public assistance and 
food stamps in the country was an absolute success.
  Well, welfare reform has been an absolute success, including the fact 
that we have raised over 2 million young people in this country out of 
poverty through that Welfare Reform Act.
  However, two of the things that needed to be changed on food stamp 
regulations were the value of an automobile. If one had an automobile 
worth more than $4,600, one did not qualify for food stamps. We changed 
that. The States now can set their own value.
  Also, we changed the shelter allowance. With oil prices rising and 
energy costs rising, rental, apartment rents that are attached to those 
will also rise. We change that to increase the shelter allowance from 
$280 to $340 which will allow more people to move from welfare to work 
and yet still have the benefit of food stamps. So I think it is an 
important reform.

  Mr. Speaker, there are many important issues in here. The last that I 
will mention is the reimportation of drugs. We have done a lot of 
demagoguery on the other side. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the next 
President of the United States will determine with this Congress what 
the prescription drug plan is. We think we have a good one that gives 
people choices instead of letting HCFA, an agency that everybody 
despises on all sides of the issue have no use for HCFA, but yet they 
want to hand this decision over to HCFA. We prefer to let the seniors 
make those decisions themselves.
  But what we have done is given the opportunity for individuals to buy 
drugs reimported into the United States at reduced prices to try to 
bring everybody's costs down.
  Let the consumers help the consumers to pay for drugs until there is 
a prescription drug plan in place. I think it is a strong bill. It is a 
good rule. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. For the last 2 years, 
Democrats have been fighting to provide America's seniors with a 
universal, affordable, and guaranteed prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare. Republicans have fought tooth and nail to resist these 
attempts.
  Now, 1\1/2\ months before the election, Republicans have agreed to 
let pharmacies buy drugs from Canada for sale to U.S. citizens. 
Unfortunately, what started as a bipartisan compromise has been 
scrapped.
  This legislation allows drug manufacturers to discriminate in pricing 
against U.S. importers. It allows manufacturers to deny U.S. importers 
access to FDA approved labels. It allows purchasers to force Canadian 
wholesalers to sell products at the inflated American price. 
Reimportation is rendered nearly impossible by this bill.
  It is not surprising that a drug industry lobbyist was quoted this 
morning in The New York Times saying, ``I doubt anyone will realize a 
penny of savings from this legislation.''
  This legislation will not help our seniors. The American people will 
see through this empty Republican promise.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to follow what the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) just had to say. This drug reimportation section is really a 
sham. It is a partisan ploy by the Republicans to pretend like they are 
doing something by allowing consumers to bring in lower price drugs 
sold in Canada and elsewhere into the United States.
  But I have a good example. I have two pharmaceutical products. They 
are the exact same brought. One is Prilosec. It is the number one drug 
in the United States. The other one is the same drug, it is also made 
by the same company, but the Canadian version goes by a different name 
called Losec.
  This bill allows the pharmaceutical companies to get the Canadians to 
agree that they will not allow Losec to come into the United States 
under the name Prilosec. Under the rules, the consumer would pay the 
higher price still in the United States because they would not be able 
to purchase that drug that sold in Canada for a cheaper amount.

                              {time}  1415

  I would urge that we defeat the previous question so we can get a 
rule to make this drug reimportation section really work for consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the rule on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. This rule does not allow language to 
close the loopholes in the drug reimportation provisions reported by 
the conference. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question on 
this rule so that we will have an opportunity to amend the drug 
provisions.
  The legislation we are considering today only pays lip service to a 
very real problem facing millions of Americans across this country--the 
high costs of prescription drugs.
  The legislation before us today is a sham. Instead of actually 
solving the problem, it gives America's seniors a placebo and hopes 
that they won't notice until after the elections.
  The reimportation provision is riddled with loopholes. One loophole 
allows drug manufacturers and their intermediaries to price 
discriminate against U.S. pharmacies and importers. Under the bill, it 
would be legal for drug companies to require their foreign distributors 
to charge U.S. importers more than foreign purchasers.
  A second loophole allows drug makers to block importation by denying 
U.S. importers access to FDA-approved labels.
  I have two packages of pills here. One is from the U.S. and one is 
from Canada. They are the same drug--an ulcer medication made by Merck 
and called Prilosec in the U.S. Prilosec was No. 1 selling drug in the 
United States in 1999.
  The U.S. version costs much more than the Canadian version. The whole 
purpose of the bill is to allow the import of the cheaper Canadian 
version.
  But under this bill, the Canadian version of Prilosec can't come in. 
You see, the label is different. The drug is called Losec in Canada and 
the label has an entire section of information written in French. So 
the label isn't FDA-approved.
  There's nothing that the U.S. importer can do to fix this. The 
importer will be barred from using the correct label by U.S. copyright 
and trademark law.

[[Page H9674]]

  This isn't an isolated case. My staff has analyzed Canadian labels 
and found that virtually none of the Canadian labels would meet FDA 
labeling requirements. I ask unanimous consent that this staff report 
be printed in the Record.
  Our seniors deserve better than this. They deserve better than false 
promises of cheap drugs. They deserve more than false hopes that they 
will be able to buy the drugs they need.

                 Prescription Drugs With Foreign Labels

       The drug importation provisions in the Agriculture 
     Appropriations bill contain several significant loopholes. 
     One major loophole is created by the fact that foreign drug 
     labels generally differ from the FDA-approved labels that 
     must be used in the United States. In effect, the bill 
     creates a labeling ``Catch-22'' for would-be U.S. importers.
       As the bill is currently drafted, U.S. importers cannot 
     import foreign drugs with labels that differ from the FDA-
     approved label. But U.S. importers cannot relabel the drugs 
     with FDA-approved labels because doing so would violate the 
     copyright and trademark protections held by the drug 
     manufacturers. An amendment offered by Rep. DeLauro to give 
     U.S. importers the right to use the FDA-approved labels was 
     voted down on a party line vote (9-6) during the conference.
       The following discussion provides more information about 
     this labeling ``Catch 22,'' along with examples of foreign 
     drugs with labels that differ from the FDA-approved labels.
       Selling drugs without the FDA-approved label is 
     misbranding. Prescription drug labels provide basic 
     information on the drug, its formulation, the manufacturer 
     and distributor, and how it is used. Every country has 
     different labeling requirements. In the United States, when a 
     company files an application for approval of a new drug, the 
     company submits the label to FDA. Any deviation from the 
     label submitted by the manufacturer without prior FDA 
     approval constitutes misbranding of the drug. The penalties 
     for misbranding under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act include fines and imprisonment.
       Some drugs are sold under different names in the different 
     countries. Prilosec, an ulcer medication made by Merck, was 
     the number one selling drug in the United States in 1999. It 
     is much more expensive in the United States ($120.45 for 
     thirty 20 mg pills) than in Canada ($51.60) or Mexico 
     ($34.50). However, in Canada and Mexico, the drug is sold 
     under a different brand name: Losec. Because of this 
     difference in names, the Canadian or Mexican labels are not 
     the FDA-approved label. Bringing Prilosec into the United 
     States with the Canadian or Mexican label is misbranding.
       Drug labels can be in different languages. In the United 
     States, approved drug labels are in English (sometimes FDA 
     also approves labels with some information in Spanish). In 
     Mexico, labels are in Spanish; in Italy, labels are in 
     Italian. Canadian drug labels are bilingual, in French and 
     English. Labels that are not in English, or that are 
     bilingual English-French labels, differ from the FDA-approved 
     label. Distributing drugs with these labels is misbranding.
       Drug labels can have different identification numbers. In 
     the United States, all approved drugs receive an FDA 
     identification number, known as a National Drug Code number. 
     This number appears on virtually all U.S. labels. In Canada, 
     however, approved drugs have a different number, a Drug 
     Information Number (DIN). The DIN appears on all Canadian 
     labels. Because the U.S. NDC code and the Canadian DIN are 
     different. Canadian labels differ from the FDA-approved 
     label, and selling a drug with a Canadian DIN in the United 
     States constitutes misbranding.
       Drugs are often distributed by different entities in 
     different countries. When a manufacturer submits an 
     application for approval of a new drug, the manufacturer must 
     identify all the distributors of the drug. In many cases, the 
     distributors of the drugs in the Unites States are different 
     from the distributors in many countries. For example, the 
     popular diabetes drug Glucophage is distributed in the United 
     States by Bristol-Myers Squibb. However, when sold in Canada, 
     the drug is distributed by Nordic Laboratories. If the 
     Canadian distributor is not approved by FDA, drugs with 
     labels listing this distributor differ from the FDA-approved 
     label and cannot be sold in the United States.
       Drugs can have different indications. For some drugs, the 
     indication information provided on labels from other 
     countries is not the same as the U.S. information. For 
     example, Dilantin, an anticonvulsant manufactured by Parke-
     Davis, contains the following information on the Canadian 
     label: Adults, initially 1 capsule 3 times daily with 
     subsequent doses individualized to a maximum of six doses 
     daily. Usual maintenance dose is 3 to 4 capsules daily. 
     Children over 6 years of age, 1 capsule three times daily or 
     as directed by physician.
       The U.S. label contains slightly different information for 
     adults and no dosage information for children. The U.S. label 
     states: ``Adults, 1 capsule three or four times daily or as 
     directed.'' Because the United States and Canadian versions 
     of the drug label contain different dosage information, the 
     drug cannot be sold in the United States with the Canadian 
     label.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. I 
strongly support the concept of reimportation, and helped to introduce 
the initial legislation with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) 
and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). I support that 
concept because it is an outrage that the people of this country pay 
two times, five times, ten times more for the same exact drugs 
manufactured in the United States and sold in Canada, sold in Mexico, 
and sold in Europe.
  We are the suckers of the world, paying far more to an industry which 
is the most profitable industry in this country, earning $27 billion in 
profits, while the pharmaceutical industry fought us from the beginning 
on this bipartisan effort. They spent $40 million against us. They have 
300 paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. fighting against us; yet we 
moved forward in a bipartisan way.
  Unfortunately, at the very end of the stage, at the end of the 
process, a nonpartisan effort became partisan. The Republican 
leadership introduced legislation with significant loopholes which 
would go a long way to nullify what we tried to do. Let me quote The 
New York Times today. A lobbyist for one of the Nation's biggest drug 
companies, which have worked against the measure, said, ``I doubt that 
anyone will realize a penny of savings from this legislation.''
  The existing legislation allows the following loopholes: it allows 
drug companies and their intermediaries to price discriminate against 
U.S. pharmacies and importers. In other words, yes, we can import 
product into this country, but it cannot be sold for a lower price than 
the existing price. It allows drug manufacturers to block the 
importation of drugs through labeling. Yes, we can bring drugs in from 
Italy, but we cannot use labels that the American people can understand 
that will get FDA approval. It does not guarantee American consumers 
access to the best world market prices. For a reason that no one can 
understand, Mexico and other countries are not part of the process.
  Let us vote ``no'' on this rule and let us create a strong loophole-
free reimportation bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time, and I would like to rise and 
congratulate my fellow Committee on Rules member for the very important 
role he has played in bringing about a very balanced compromise.
  It is no secret that I have for years stood in the well here and 
talked about the importance of globalization and global trade and 
expanding our Western values into repressive societies. I happen to 
believe that it has had a great deal of success, and I know that there 
are many here in this House who actually voted to broadly open up Cuba. 
But we were working on this compromise with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) 
and several others here. So that is why I believe we have a carefully 
crafted compromise, and we hope very much the President is going to 
agree to sign this bill.
  I also want to say that I believe when it comes to the issue of 
prescription drugs, we are pursuing a reasonably balanced approach on 
that. We all want to make sure that affordable drugs are available to 
our senior citizens, and a prescription drug plan happens to be a very 
high priority for this Republican Congress. The fact of the matter is 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to go to 
what is clearly a failed policy. It was a failed policy when it was 
applied here in the United States by a Republican administration, 
President Nixon, who imposed wage and price controls. It is a failed 
policy when we look at repressive societies all around the world.
  Cost controls do not work. And when we look at the issue which is of 
prime concern to every single one of us, and that is finding a cure for 
diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, it seems 
to me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to

[[Page H9675]]

try to encourage and provide incentives for those individuals and those 
companies which are attempting to find cures for those so that we can, 
in fact, have an improved quality of life and we can have an extension 
of life, which is something that is very near and dear to all of us.
  So that is why this bill deserves our strong support. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule. Vote against the previous question, or 
whatever it is they might try to offer, and let us proceed and get a 
measure to the President's desk which he can sign.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and to ask our Members to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule. Now, why do I do 
that, as ranking member of the subcommittee? The base bill is good; 
however, we want to defeat the previous question in order to offer an 
amendment that would allow us to have a real prescription drug benefit 
provision for the American people. And the only way we can get that 
amendment is by voting no. In fact, this will be the only measure in 
this Congress where we will be able to help lower prices in 
prescription drugs for the American public.
  In this bill there is a so-called provision for prescription drugs, 
but I ask my colleagues to read it. What does it do? First of all, it 
expires after 5 years. So what importer or wholesaler is going to want 
to get in the business of bringing in drugs from Canada, at Canadian 
prices, which are lower than U.S. prices, when you know it would not be 
continuing down the road?
  In addition to that, the underlying measure has a provision that 
would permit the big drug companies to insert contracting provisions 
that if any drugs are brought back into our country, for example, from 
Canada, they could only be sold at the higher U.S. prices rather than 
at Canadian prices. Our amendment says they cannot do that. They cannot 
have those kinds of restrictive contracts.
  In addition, in the base bill, there is a provision that would deny 
the ability of the importers in our country to use the FDA-approved 
label so that we have the same name of the drug and we know that it is 
scientifically approved by FDA. They actually deny that in the 
underlying amendment. They would not allow us to amend the bill when we 
were in the conference committee.
  So I would urge the membership to please give us our only opportunity 
in this Congress to vote for a real prescription drug benefit for the 
American people. Vote ``no'' on the previous question, this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this rule, not because 
the underlying bill is poor. It is not. But because this rule does not 
give us an opportunity to insert within the bill language which would 
allow for a meaningful reduction in the price of pharmaceuticals for 
American citizens.
  The bill pretends to allow the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from 
Canada, where they are available at one-half the price or less than 
that which they are available for here in the United States. It 
pretends to do that, but it does not really carry out that objective. 
It makes an omission, knowingly and wittingly, in that it does not 
provide for the means by which that importation will take place.
  For example, the language in the bill leaves open the ability of the 
pharmaceutical companies in their contracts with the Canadian 
Government and Canadian distributors to insert contract provisions 
which will require that the drugs from Canada can only be reimported 
back into the United States at the highly inflated American price. For 
example, there is a very popular cholesterol inhibitor which is 
manufactured by Merck. It is available in Canada for $39. The same 
amount of exactly the same formulary, from the same company, costs $117 
here in the United States.
  If we are going to do anything to prevent the continued exploitation 
of American consumers in the price of pharmaceuticals, we have to 
defeat this rule. This is the only opportunity we have to deal with 
this issue in this Congress because the majority party has only given 
us this one opportunity, and it is a sham opportunity. It is a shell. 
It is empty. It does not accomplish the objective.
  If we want to do something to reduce the price of pharmaceuticals, 
the only opportunity we will have to do that is by defeating this rule. 
The rule must be defeated.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule. It is riddled with loopholes and will do little to lower drug 
costs here in the United States.
  I rise in support of this legislation which includes funding for a 
number of important initiatives to fight invasive species in the United 
States. I am specifically pleased that this bill includes $540 million 
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and $973 million for 
the Agricultural Research Service.
  Both of these programs are essential to ensure that we win our battle 
against harmful invasive species that are killing our forests and 
farmlands.
  The threat of invasive species outbreaks as a result of recent 
wildfires across the country have made many Members aware of the 
incredible threat that invasive species can pose to our natural 
resources, and I would like to thank the appropriators for including 
additional funding for APHIS and ARS, two programs which specifically 
help to control invasive species.
  In New York, we are fighting the Asian Longhorned Beetle, which has 
already destroyed more than 2600 trees. Earlier this year, these 
beetles were found in several new locations across New York City. 
Experience has taught us that the only way we can destroy these 
incredibly destructive pests is to respond immediately and decisively.
  The additional resources provided for APHIS and ARS will guarantee 
that we can accomplish this goal and protect New York City's 
greenspaces and forests across the country.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critically important 
legislation today.
  I would also like to comment on the inclusion of provisions designed 
to deal with prescription drug imports. Although this bill will allow 
pharmacies and wholesalers to buy American-made prescription drugs and 
reimport them into the United States, this bill will do nothing to 
lower drug costs for people in the United States. It is riddled with 
loopholes.
  In my home State of New York, breast cancer medications can cost over 
$100 per prescription while they are available in Canada and Mexico to 
their residents for a tenth of that price. Many women in my home State 
and, indeed, across the country are forced to dilute their 
prescriptions that fight breast cancer, to cut their pills in half 
because they cannot afford their prescription drugs in order to get by 
financially. And many in my home State get on the bus every weekend to 
go to Canada to purchase American manufactured drugs because it is 
cheaper than in their own country.
  This situation is completely unacceptable. Sadly, the reimportation 
provisions included in this bill will likely have little effect on 
these seniors and many others around the Nation. We need to take 
stronger action to protect seniors forced to travel abroad to obtain 
medicines they desperately need. This language fails to achieve this 
goal.
  Finally, this Congress needs to act now to pass real prescription 
drug legislation to solve this problem once and for all. I strongly 
support the bill put forward by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) 
which would make seniors the same preferred customers as HMO's and also 
the President's plan to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs.
  I urge this Congress to take real action on this issue today and make 
a difference for America's seniors.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican reimportation bill is a 
scheme that is so full of loopholes you can drive a truck through it. 
It denies seniors a chance at relief from the skyrocketing costs of 
prescription drugs. Seniors are being choked to death with the cost of 
prescription drugs. What we

[[Page H9676]]

need to do, and what our goal should be, is to provide a prescription 
drug benefit through Medicare that is voluntary and covers all of our 
seniors.
  Today, we have this sham pharmaceutical reimportation bill that was 
made in the dead of night by a very few Members of the Republican 
leadership behind closed doors. Today, prescription drug manufacturers 
can import prescription drugs. They are the only ones who can import 
prescription drugs into the United States. They have unfairly used this 
to control the distribution of the drugs at the expense of seniors.
  Seniors know, and we all know, that people in other countries pay 20 
to 50 percent less for the same medications. Zantac, made by Glaxo-
Wellcome in the U.K., is marked up by 58 percent in the United States. 
Our seniors deserve better; they deserve the same medication at the 
same price.
  This reimportation scheme really restricts access to safe, affordable 
prescription drugs from abroad. It gives drug manufacturers a veto over 
the imports, and it is set to die just 5 years after the FDA 
regulations are in place.
  Currently, U.S. reimporters cannot bring foreign drugs with labels 
that are different than the American labels into this country. The 
Republican leadership scheme traps U.S. reimporters by refusing to let 
them relabel the drugs, forcing them to violate copyright and trademark 
laws if they want to bring those affordable drugs to our seniors. 
Example: Dilantin. Made in Canada with one label; U.S., different 
label. We cannot bring the Canadian Dilantin into the United States 
without the same label. The pharmaceutical companies do not want to 
give permission to relabel Dilantin.
  That is what this is about. This is one more attempt by the 
Republican leadership of this House to work with the pharmaceutical 
companies to thwart every single opportunity to bring in prescription 
drugs that seniors need to keep them healthy and to keep them alive. 
They do not want to, in fact, bring the cost of those drugs down, to 
bring the prices down so that people can get the medications that they 
need.
  It is wrong and it is unconscionable and it is immoral for us to 
engage in this kind of trickery here today. Vote against this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for 
myself and my colleague.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Florida has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I must say, in listening to the rhetoric here and the passion of my 
colleagues across the aisle, I am a little confused, because they know 
that the language that is in the House bill is stronger and goes 
further than the original language offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), 
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and 
all the stuff that we passed on the floor.
  What we did in the House was we split the difference between the 
Jeffords language in the Senate and some of our House amendments. But 
as somebody who has worked for this language, I think this is good, and 
here is why.

                              {time}  1430

  It brings down the cost of drugs by putting a needed element of 
competition into it. We, under this bill, say that individuals can buy 
their drugs on the Internet or go over to Canada or Mexico and buy 
American-manufactured drugs at a less expensive price and drug stores 
can reimport this. There are safety concerns, $23 million for the FDA. 
There are certain kinds of drugs that we cannot reimport.
  As far as the sunset provision goes, does anybody believe that in 5 
years we are going to retract from this? This just gives time after the 
FDA works out the safety concerns for the thing to work and for 
Congress to come back at it.
  Now, we were not able to get into some of the contractual issues that 
the Democrats wanted to, Mr. Speaker, because that overturns a 
profound, I guess, precedent of case laws that have to do with 
contractual law in America.
  What we did was as close as we could get. Let me add, the Senate 
Democrats unanimously voted for these provisions because they know for 
people like Myrlene Free's sister in El Paso, Texas, who takes Zocor 
that she has to pay $97 for it in El Paso. She knows that, under this 
legislation, she can go to Juarez, Mexico, and buy that same American-
made Zocor for $29; and it is the same dosage, the same amount, and 
everything.
  This is going to help not just seniors but Americans, women with 
children, families. It is going to help everybody by putting much 
needed competition. The drug companies are totally against this. They 
have been running ads in my district against me because I think this is 
good legislation and I support it, and I urge my colleagues to pass 
this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether the Republican leadership in 
this Congress reports to the Congress or reports to the prescription 
drug industry.
  The public is sending a clear message that they are sick of 
unjustifiably high and blatantly discriminatory prescription drug 
prices.
  Democrats offer a proposal featuring an optional Medicare drug 
benefit. The Democrats offer a proposal to discount drug prices using 
the collective bargaining power of 39 million Medicare beneficiaries. 
The Democrats offer a strategy for undercutting international price 
discrimination with the ability to reimport prescription drugs.
  Republicans refuse to even consider price discounts for seniors. They 
emasculate the reimportation proposal. Then they sunset this phoney 
bill before the provisions even have a chance to kick in.
  A watered down drug reimportation bill is marginally better than no 
bill at all; But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want a single American to be 
fooled into thinking the Republican leadership has been responsive to 
the prescription drug crisis. The only constituency that they have been 
responsive to is the prescription drug industry.
  Vote no on the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, when we passed my amendment here in the House, I have to 
tell my colleagues it has nothing to do in any way, shape, or form with 
the language that is before the House today. When my amendment passed 
this House over the Agriculture appropriations bill, millions of 
dollars were spent in advertisements against that measure to see that 
it would not pass in the Senate.
  I have not seen one advertisement in opposition to the Republican 
language here before us today, not one piece of advertisement for the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  Does that not say it all? We try to work in a bipartisan fashion, 
but, unfortunately, the Republican leadership here killed that because 
it was too tough. Our compromise was too tough on the drug companies.
  The GOP has offered their own plan and it is filled with loopholes. 
The plan is ineffective. It bans reimportation from a number of 
countries. It does not require drug companies to provide importers 
their FDA-approved labeling standards. It sunsets reimportation in 5 
years. Who wants to invest in that type of a process?
  The GOP has opposed drug coverage under Medicare. They have opposed 
price fairness legislation. And now they oppose real language that will 
reduce the cost of prescription drugs between 30 and 50 percent without 
costing the taxpayers one single cent.

[[Page H9677]]

  The facts are that seniors in my congressional district pay twice as 
much for their prescription drugs as their counterparts in Canada and 
Mexico. And under the language before us under this rule, they will 
continue to do so even when this legislation is passed.
  Just like their prescription drug bill, this legislation, this 
language is a scam.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the leader of the Democratic party.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because once again this 
Congress has failed the American people and handed the special 
interests a victory. I am deeply disappointed with this reimportation 
provision in this bill. There is now widespread agreement that this 
measure will do next to nothing for the American people.
  A lobbyist for a major drug company told The New York Times that he 
doubted ``that anyone will realize a penny of savings from this 
legislation.''
  Last month, Democrats and Republicans were working hard to craft 
effective importation legislation that contains strong safety 
standards. Reimportation was on its way to becoming a real achievement 
for the American consumer.
  To be sure, reimportation was never a substitute for a Medicare 
prescription benefit that offered a guaranteed benefit and lower 
medicine prices for all seniors. But it was a step in the right 
direction, a rare example of what we as a Congress could do when we set 
aside our differences and come together to help the people of this 
country.
  But a few days ago, just as we were about to move forward, the 
bipartisan dynamic ran into a brick wall, a brick wall of a leadership 
unbending to compromise, unwilling to detach itself from special 
interests to pursue a larger agenda.
  Operating behind closed doors, after a bipartisan agreement had 
almost been reached, the Republican leadership torpedoed a sound 
reimportation measure that could have resulted in lower prices for 
millions of consumers.
  Looking for political cover after repeatedly blocking a Medicare 
prescription benefit, the Republican leadership put out a sham 
reimportation measure that is not worth the government paper that it is 
printed on. Riddled with loopholes, this measure allows pharmaceutical 
companies to circumvent the new law and it sunsets in 5 years. So 
whatever benefits come from the bill the American people can be sure 
that they will disappear soon. And we are told that the people in the 
industry that would do this will not even set it up if there is a 5-
year sunset provision.
  The measure as it now stands is nothing more than a capitulation to 
the special interests at whose bidding the Republican leadership works.
  Listen to what people are saying about the watered down measure. The 
New York Times today reported that ``doubts are growing about 
legislation to allow imports of low-priced prescription drugs, and no 
one in the government or the drug industry can say how it will work or 
even whether it will work.''
  The health policy coordinator at the White House said this measure is 
now ``unworkable.''
  What happened to the bipartisan, sensible measure that we should be 
voting on today? Why did the leadership torpedo that bill and replace 
it with a meaningless measure that does nothing for real people?
  The answer lies in a leadership that is so tied to special interests 
that it blocks major initiatives at the expense of the American people.
  Congress has wasted 2 years now trying to accomplish something 
meaningful for the American consumer. But this leadership has been more 
devoted to the powerful lobbies than to working families.
  The leadership blocked campaign finance reform, a Patients' Bill of 
Rights, a Medicare prescription benefit, gun safety legislation, and a 
modest increase in the minimum wage as favors to HMOs, insurance 
companies, pharmaceutical companies, big business, and the NRA.
  I and many of my colleagues will support this measure because it 
contains disaster relief and hunger relief for many in our country. But 
time is running out on this Congress. We have only a few days to do 
something meaningful for the American people.
  Reimportation is dead. But I believe with all my heart there is time 
to do something with the people's agenda. We can still pass the 
bipartisan bills that majorities in Congress have already supported, 
that the President says he will sign, and that the American people 
want.
  I urge the leadership to stop blocking America's agenda. Let us do 
what the American people sent us here to do and let us do it in a 
bipartisan way.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) a tough negotiator and a tough 
advocate, but a friend.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, too often in this place each of us in our respective 
positions on an issue seek perfection. We want it only our way. And I 
think this bill, this measure, this appropriations conference report is 
a picture of bipartisanship, of compromise, of not everybody getting 
everything they wanted in particular in the context of this bill.
  But, overall, it is a good package. It provides prescription drug 
assistance. It provides tremendous agriculture research. It gives us a 
chance to lift sanctions on food and medicine for countries that we 
have previously sanctioned unilaterally for all these years.
  Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. I wish I had it a different way 
in some respects for my purposes, but that is not the nature of this 
legislative system. So I would say to my friends on the other side 
respectfully, certainly they did not get it all 100 percent the way 
they want, but it is a great step forward.
  This rule should be adopted. Anyone who supported the position that I 
have taken on limiting sanctions on food and medicine, I urge them on 
both sides of the aisle to support this rule, support this conference 
report, and let us get this to the President and get it signed so we 
can move agriculture forward.
  This bill has $100 million in food bank assistance. Try voting 
against that. That is not advisable. It has prescription drug 
assistance in it. It has in it agriculture research that will help our 
farmers compete in a world market.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 2001 
conference report on the Agriculture appropriations bill that provide 
critically needed funding to meet both the short-term and long-term 
needs of the country's farming community, which is struggling valiantly 
to survive during this period of increasingly high production costs and 
persistently low commodity prices.
  The bill includes $3.5 billion in new emergency relief that many 
deserving farmers must have to get through the hard times; funding for 
crucial research projects that are needed to ensure the future 
competitiveness and prosperity of U.S. farming; and a wide range of 
programs to promote land and water conservation, health and nutrition, 
and the economic well-being of our rural areas.
  I fought for these programs, both as a member of the Committee on 
Agriculture and as a Representative in Congress of an area in Georgia 
that is deeply rooted in the farming tradition.
  In many respects, this is a good bill. In the area of research, for 
example, it appropriates more than a million dollars for work at the 
Peanut Research Laboratory in Dawson, thanks to an agreement I secured 
on this floor with my colleague from Georgia who serves on the 
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee; $300,000 for the University of 
Georgia's National Center of Peanut Competitiveness; $500,000 for 
addressing peanut food allergy risks; $250,000 for research in Tifton, 
Georgia, on crop yield losses caused by nematodes; and $78 million for 
boll weevil eradication

[[Page H9678]]

projects, which can ensure a more secure future for our farmers and for 
our economy in general.

                              {time}  1445

  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I remain concerned about the level of 
funding appropriated for emergency relief. The bill authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to determine the crop loss threshold to 
qualify for emergency help. I have called on Secretary Glickman to set 
aside a threshold that is well below 35 percent. With sharply increased 
fuel costs, many farmers in Georgia and in other areas of the country 
as well face a crisis even with crop losses that may fall below 35 
percent.
  One of the challenges confronting the Secretary under this bill is 
where to set the threshold and still have sufficient funds to provide 
meaningful levels of relief. I pray that will be enough. While the $3.5 
billion is less than I advocated, I would add that this is 
substantially more than we had.
  There are many positive features in this bill. I urge Members to 
support the bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), a friend with whom I have strong 
disagreement on this issue but he is a friend.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, the debate on the rule has become a debate 
on reimportation. Therefore, I will be supporting the rule. But the 
underlying bill I do have objection with both because of the level of 
cost but predominantly because of the Cuba deal. I think that this Cuba 
deal is fatally flawed in that it perpetuates basically the dark ages 
when it comes to Cuba. I know of no business after 40 years of failed 
policy that would say, ``Let's keep doing the same''; but that is 
fundamentally what this bill does, and in fact it does more than that.
  It threatens democratic rule. I came to the House believing in one 
man, one vote. If you won it fair and square on the floor, that is the 
way it stood. We had a vote that would allow Americans to travel to 
Cuba that is reversed in this Cuba deal. It threatens the idea of 
engagement. The Republican Party has consistently stood for the idea of 
engaging with other people. This deal reverses that.
  It threatens the power of ideas. I believe if my ideas beat your 
ideas, I should be able to stand there and debate that. This deal 
threatens that. Finally, it makes a mockery of the Constitution, which 
guarantees that all Americans should be allowed the right to travel.
  For this reason, I have very strong objections to the Cuba deal that 
was worked out as a part of the ag bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me this time.
  I come from the State of Michigan, which borders Canada. We know the 
difference and we know the differentials in prices, and I think it is 
unfortunate that this conference report puts another sham before the 
seniors.
  Seniors need relief, 39 million seniors and over 20 million Medicaid 
patients who use prescription drugs on a daily basis. Why can we not 
address their concern? This reimportation clause, many of my 
constituents who go to Canada, who get the drugs for anywhere from one-
third to two-thirds less than they have to pay in America, why is that? 
Could we not have come in this bill, as good as the bill is and as poor 
as it is on the prescription question, done better for our seniors, 
over 50 million who use, seniors, prescriptions on an annual basis 
every day? I think it is unfortunate.
  Vote against the rule. Let them go back and if we are going to have a 
reimportation clause, make it work for the over 50 million people who 
need a reduction in their prices for their medicines.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a distinguished colleague, a tremendous 
negotiator and advocate.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to address specifically the 
issue of drug reimportation. Let me say from the outset that I do not 
think that there is any colleague of mine who believes that 
reimportation is the only way that we bring lower-cost prescription 
medicine to our senior citizens. As a matter of fact, it is the first 
of two things that we must do in order to ensure that our seniors have 
access to lower-cost prices. This deals specifically with the price 
issue.
  Let me say that I am kind of surprised to hear some of my colleagues 
from the other side use the pharmaceutical industry's own words and 
agree with them because it was my understanding, it has been my 
understanding, that most of us did not agree with them at least with 
regard to the issue of reimportation. And so let me just say that this 
is something that we have to allow to work.
  I want to address specifically the issues that all of my colleagues 
on the other side raised, issues that we worked long and hard over for 
hundreds of hours, our staffs and us did, in a very bipartisan way. 
First of all, the issue of labeling specifically as the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and 
others mentioned it. I will say at the beginning, the Senate passed the 
Jeffords bill by a wide majority in the Senate. The President said, 
``Send me the Jeffords language.'' The labeling language in the 
Jeffords bill is identical word for word to that which is in our bill 
today. The President says, ``I urge you to send me the Senate 
legislation with full funding to let wholesalers and pharmacists bring 
affordable prescription drugs to neighborhoods where our seniors 
live.''
  In addition to that, let me add that we included language in our 
conference report that allowed the Secretary to promulgate regulations 
that would serve as a means to facilitate the importation of such 
products, so this would allow the Secretary to head off any labeling 
concerns that would prevent the importation of drugs. Even yesterday, 
the Supreme Court refused to hear a case that SmithKline Beecham was 
bringing against a generic drug maker on the whole issue of labeling, 
and the lower court, the Second Circuit Court's language holds on that 
and says that the Food and Drug Administration has the discretion to 
make labeling possible and necessary. So that is a nonissue.
  I would like to then turn to the issue of contracts where my 
colleagues on the other side are saying that there is some sort of a 
loophole. Our language says that no manufacturer of a covered product 
may enter into a contract or agreement that includes a provision to 
prevent the sale or distribution of covered products imported pursuant 
to subsection whatever. When you look at the language that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) provided, which we did have, I 
admit, in the original bill, there is nothing in his language, either, 
that actually deals with the issue of price. So by limiting the 
language to the definition that we had in the Waxman language, quite 
frankly the industry could find other ways around that language, and so 
this then becomes, too, a nonissue. For anybody to say that the 
pharmaceutical companies wrote this language, they know as well as I do 
that that simply is not true, specifically when we are dealing with the 
issue of contracting and other things.
  I also want to address the issue of sunsetting. All of the 
bipartisan, bicameral negotiators on this bill agreed to a 5-year 
sunset with the exception of one person. So to raise this as an issue 
to me is just simply demagoguery and it will not work. This bill will 
sunset 5 years after the regulations are put into place.
  And so I would just simply urge my colleagues to vote yes on the 
rule, pass this bill, remembering this is only the first step in giving 
our senior citizens low-cost prescription drugs.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, in 
support of my colleague that has worked across party lines to come up 
with something that, while not perfect, does move ahead and also is 
very important for Maine agriculture. These issues are important both 
for agricultural research and also to be able to help out the disasters 
in apples and dairy.
  Friday's Congressional Record listed the Ag conference report. Here's 
what the reimportation language now contains:

[[Page H9679]]

  Based on the Senate language;
  Allows reimportation by individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers;
  Limited to reimportation from EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, Israel, 
New Zealand and South Africa. Expansion of list upon FDA approval;
  Requires that the process maintains safety and saves consumers money;
  Secretary of HHS must work with USTR and Patents and Trademarks;
  Importers must give FDA documentation of batch testing;
  Requirements stricter when not reimported by original receiver of 
goods first purchased from U.S.;
  Testing in a qualified, FDA-approved laboratory;
  Drugs that cannot be reimported: Schedule I, II, and III drugs and 
any that are supplied for free or donated;
  Study by HHS will be conducted to evaluate compliance and effect of 
reimportation on patent rights;
  Individuals can order drugs, but FDA may send notices if the drugs 
being reimported appear to be misbranded, is restricted for sale in 
this country, or otherwise is in violation of the law;
  Appropriates up to $23 million for the enhanced FDA-authority/
responsibility; and
  Prohibits manufacturers from entering into a contract to prevent 
reimportation.
  Points that opponents will use against this bill:
  The provisions sunset in 5 years--the original compromise contained a 
3 year sunset;
  Labeling--products meet U.S. labeling requirements. Opponents point 
out that the U.S. manufacturers control the labels, and all they would 
have to do to stop reimportation is to not make the FDA-required labels 
available for those wanting to reimport;
  Some countries left out of reimportation--including Mexico; and
  HHS Secretary has to certify Americans will save money.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on the issue of drug reimportation. I am on the 
committee. I support the agricultural bill, I think it is a good bill, 
but I think there is a part of it that we have got to wake up. The 
question is, when is drug reimportation not an importation? I hope that 
the Members of this Congress and particularly the press will take a 
look at the small print in this bill, specifically, the technical 
amendments to the underlying bill. Take a look at page 41, for example. 
That bill is the one that talks about reimportation of drugs. On page 
41 we see a subsection entitled F which says ``Country Limitation.'' If 
you go to the language, it reads, ``Drugs may be imported only, only 
from the countries that are listed in subparagraph A of section 
802(b)(1).'' That is not in this bill, so you have got to go someplace 
else and look it up. Here is the sham.
  If you turn to that section in existing law, one finds that it only 
lists those countries where American drug companies can send unapproved 
products. That is the title of that section, ``Unapproved Products.'' 
Here is the trap. American companies can send out but cannot reimport, 
because we do not allow unapproved products to come back into the 
United States. I hope the American press can do what the congressional 
staff has failed to do and that is to tell the truth about this 
section. The drug provisions are a sham. There is no reimportation. I 
ask for a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to what my 
dear friend from California said. Following the section that he read, 
there is then language that gives the Secretary very broad discretion 
in adding countries as she, or he in the future, whatever, may desire, 
subject to safety standards.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. If the previous 
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to make in order the 
Democratic plan to allow access to the supply of lowest-cost 
medications that meet American safety standards.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment that 
I would offer along with extraneous material, as follows:

     Previous Question Amendment--Conference Report on Agriculture 
                      Appropriations Act, FY 2001

       Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert the 
     following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall be 
     considered to have adopted House Concurrent Resolution 420.
       Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate informing 
     the House of the adoption of the concurrent resolution, it 
     shall be in order to consider the conference report on the 
     bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes, and all points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     hereby waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
     having been read when called up for consideration.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a role resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendments.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2). Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation. It is very important work. It is needed help for America's 
farmers. It is the product of many, many hours of hard work by multiple 
Members of this House. I thanked previously my colleagues; I thank them 
at this point. I do not have enough time to mention them again. It is 
very important that this legislation be passed.
  With regard to the sanctions, it is a compromise. No one is 100 
percent happy, but there is no financing for the dictatorship in Cuba, 
and there is no bartering and there is no financing, whether it is 
private or public. In addition to that, there is no expansion of

[[Page H9680]]

travel dollars for that thug fascist dictatorship.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and to pass the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Prescription Drug Import plan contained in the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 and the rule providing for its 
consideration. While I applaud any effort to reduce the cost of 
prescription drugs for seniors. I can say with confidence and sincerity 
that the plan in this bill is not a solution to the problem. Due to the 
immense loopholes contained in the legislation and its watered-down 
content, it will not in any way affect the cost of prescription drugs 
for seniors in the United States. If the prescription drug import 
provisions in this legislation were an honest attempt to address this 
issue, it is possible that they would be effective in reducing the cost 
of prescription drugs for our citizens. However, they have been written 
in such a way as to allow the drug companies a way out of having to 
offer American seniors what they need: quality medications at reduced 
costs.
  Since the provisions are contained in the larger agriculture 
appropriation bill, I must vote in favor of the overall bill. However, 
I wish to register my opposition on the content of the reimportation 
provisions. These provisions are a sham piece of legislation designed 
to allow drug companies to continue to make outrageous profits off of 
senior citizens in America. This is why money must be removed from the 
political process, because as long as drug company money floats freely 
into it--this is the kind of trickery that will continue to rule the 
day. The greatest generation of Americans; the same generation that 
persevered through the Second World War; the same generation that lived 
through the Great Depression, is now being sold down the river in 
exchange for advancing the interests of the pharmaceutical companies. 
This is a campaign year, smoke and mirrors tactic that nearly every 
credible source has dismissed as useless and not credible. This is a 
sad day for this Congress, but an even sadder day for the elderly 
people who thought they might get some relief this year.
  I am sorry to say that this plan has been fashioned to appear as if 
it is part of the answer to the high cost of prescription medicines, 
but appearances to not solve problems, only legislation that is 
comprehensive and complete can effectively deal with the financial 
burden that rests on our seniors. In order to truly keep our promises 
to the American people, and reduce these costs, we must establish a 
prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program.
  I urge my colleges to vote against the rule so that we can be allowed 
to offer a real solution to the problem of the high cost of 
prescription drugs instead of allowing the leadership to attempt to 
fool our seniors into thinking we are doing something for them.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 201, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 524]

                               YEAS--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Burr
     Campbell
     Coble
     Danner
     Eshoo
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Klink
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Shuster
     Spratt
     Wise

                              {time}  1516

  Messrs. FORD, INSLEE, and OWENS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. KASICH and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________