[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.
____________________