Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9681-H9709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 617, I call up
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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 617, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Friday, October 6, 2000 at page H9461.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen)
and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring before the House the conference report
on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural
Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has two main parts. The first titles, Title I
through VII, comprises the regular fiscal year 2001 appropriations
bill, which has a total budget authority of slightly less than $15.3
billion.
The second part, which is Title VIII, is the emergency title, and
that totals just over $3.6 billion. The administration advised us that
it would not submit a formal request for disaster assistance, so as we
have done in the past, we worked informally with program managers at
USDA and with House and Senate colleagues to address as many concerns
as possible.
I believe that we have a good conference report that deserves the
support of this body. We were able to make significant increases over
the fiscal year 2000 level in research, food safety, domestic feeding,
and conservation programs.
This bill also contains compromise language in two critical issues:
prescription drug importation, and sanctions of agricultural exports. I
believe the language that we are offering will make it easier for our
senior citizens to have access to safer, less costly drugs, and make it
easier for our farmers and ranchers to export their products to certain
countries.
I would like to point out a few highlights of the conference report
which I think are important to us all. In the two main research
accounts, we have about $120 million over the current fiscal year
level, in direct response to Members' concerns for critical research
priorities.
APHIS regular programs have been increased by $38 million over fiscal
year 2000, in response to many Members' concerns about invasive plants,
pests, and diseases. There is additional money in the APHIS account to
assist in the boll weevil program. The Agricultural Marketing Service
has increased by $15 million, and GIPSA by $4.5 million.
Meat and poultry inspection has been increased by $47.5 million,
which is actually higher than the official budget request. This
represents our efforts to respond to problems that occurred after both
bodies had passed their respective bills.
Our FSA loan programs are increased slightly over the current year,
and we have met the administration's requests for salaries and
expenses.
Conservation programs on the discretionary side are increased by
about $70 million, which is just under the administration's request. On
the mandatory side, there is an additional $35 million for technical
assistance for the Wetlands Reserve and the Conservation Reserve
programs. There is also $117 million to enroll an additional 100,000
acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, since so many Members have
requested us to lift the authorized enrollment cap.
In rural development, we have met the administration's request for
the Rural Community Advancement Program, and in spite of sharply higher
subsidy rates, we have increased housing and rural utility loan levels
by half a billion dollars each.
In domestic food programs, WIC has been increased by $20 million,
commodity assistance by $7 million, and elderly feeding by $10 million
over fiscal year 2000.
In P.L. 480, I know there was a lot of concern about the low House
number. I am happy to report that Title II is now $837 million, so all
of the food aid programs are at the administration's request.
The Food and Drug Administration's salaries and expenses are
increased by almost $31 million, and we will be able to go ahead with
the badly needed new building in Los Angeles.
Finally, I think all of us hear on a near weekly basis from the land
grant schools about the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems. In past years, we have had to put a limitation on this program
to pay for other important accounts, but this conference report allows
the Initiative as well as the Fund for Rural America to go forward in
fiscal year 2001, using money saved from the 2000 budget.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will generate benefits in every
congressional district in the country. We are providing strong
protection for the health and safety of our citizens, nutrition and
feeding programs for the most vulnerable, and agricultural research
which makes us the greatest producer of food and fiber the world has
ever known, and funding for a strong and productive rural America.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid
bipartisan bill which works for all America. Much of it is compromise,
to be sure, but I believe it is good compromise and good policy.
In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the
subcommittee for their help and hard work since we began this process
earlier this year. In particular, I would like to thank the staff for
all their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin
Delgado; Joanne Orndorff; John Z.; Ann Dubey; Maureen Holohan; David
Reich, of the staff of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and Jim
Richards, from my personal office. Without them, we would not have a
bill here today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this conference
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material related
to H.R. 4461:

[[Page H9682]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.001

[[Page H9683]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.002

[[Page H9684]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.003

[[Page H9685]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.004

[[Page H9686]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.005

[[Page H9687]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.006

[[Page H9688]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.007

[[Page H9689]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11OC00.008

[[Page H9690]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report as a
significant improvement over the measure that originally moved through
this body. Before I get into the details, let me just say that I
particularly this afternoon rise with great respect and true admiration
for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), our chairman of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, who under current Republican
caucus rules is serving his last year as a fair, caring and truly
outstanding chairman.
I will say that I know that as a regular committee member, the
gentleman will continue to be exemplary in his service, but I will miss
him in his current position.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to express genuine support and thanks to our
subcommittee staff, Hank Moore, Martin Delgado, John Ziolkowski, Joanne
Orndorff and our detailees Anne DuBey and Maureen Holohan, and also our
minority staff, David Reich, and on my own staff, Roger Szemraj for
doing such a tremendous job in sheperding this major legislation
through the Congress.
I also want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he kept his word on both
sides of the aisle, so that our conferees could meet and fully engage
in debate as we did in every single line item of this bill. I say
thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is our ranking
member on the full committee who participated in every single meeting.
I actually do not know how he does it, so tirelessly, and I want to
thank the people of Wisconsin for sending him here for service to the
Nation.
I want to thank the Members on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Boyd). We thank them for yeoman's service in the
construction of this very important measure.
Mr. Speaker, overall the conference report spends over $78.5 billion.
A little over three-quarters of that is in what we call mandatory
spending for programs, especially our food programs, breakfast
programs, lunch programs, elderly feeding programs, surplus commodity
programs, that are used from coast to coast. $28 billion dollars,
nearly half of that, goes to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net
realized losses as we move product around the world and here at home.
Mr. Speaker, another $1.7 billion goes for crop insurance. The base
bill in addition to this has $15 billion in discretionary spending in
important areas, such as new research for fuels of the future, the
extension service to bring the latest in research right down to the
farm and the ranch, conservation programs--so much a part of America's
rich natural heritage and essential to sustainability of the future,
food safety programs, rural housing and development, all of our feeding
programs, international assistance and certainly the Food and Drug
Administration.
In this bill, also, and this is of critical interest to those who tie
their livelihoods to the rural countryside, we have more than $3.6
billion for disaster, farm assistance, and rural development programs.
I will say more about that in a moment, but we were also able to
incorporate into this measure portions of the Hunger Relief Act. We
know as welfare reform really kicks in in every State across this
country, thousands of people go to work for minimum wage without health
benefits.
In this bill, we have provided housing and vehicle allowances and the
right to food for those workers and their children to help them
transition to the marketplace off of welfare. We are very, very pleased
to be able to do that on this particular committee.
Mr. Speaker, I also have to say, of course, we were not able to
defeat the rule and bring a real prescription drug reimportation
provision before the Congress. That is truly sad, and every one of us
will have to account for that before the voters this fall. In addition
to that, the sanctions language in this bill is absolutely unworkable;
even the Cuban Government has said that the provisions may be worse
than the status quo, and we really will not be able to sell product in
Cuba because of the restrictions in this measure.
However, the needs of the country outweigh any one of those
provisions, and we have to vote on the overall bill based on its
merits.
I will quickly tick off key provisions of the bill: we do provide
additional funds for market concentration investigation in our Grain
Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration; food safety, full
funding in that program; additional funds for our Farm Service Agency
operations, including extra funds to administer the disaster program so
essential across this country this year; for our conservation programs,
a decent level of support; research, which is key to the future; in
APHIS, while the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, it has
been funded in a manner that dedicates an inordinate amount of funds to
the boll weevil program. We have so many other invasive species such as
Asian longhorn beetle and others where we do not have equal levels of
support. That is unfortunate. We were not able to work out fair
apportionment of these funds completely.
In rural development, we do provide an increase over last year; in
food donations, in the PL480 provisions and in title 2, an increase
there to help move surplus product into the international market so as
to help farm prices here at home; and then in the Food and Drug
Administration, some additional assistance there, but certainly not
what the agency was looking for.
I wanted to spend my final few minutes here talking about the
emergency funding provisions in more detail, because this is so
important across the country. For crop losses due to disasters, during
the 2000 crop year, including those losses due to quality losses, we
have funded what is necessary. We estimate across America that will
require over $1.6 billion in funding.
There is funding in this bill for dairy producers to compensate for
their low prices. There is livestock assistance. We had many questions
on that from people representing ranching communities. Also there is
targeted assistance for our apple and potato producers, cranberry
producers, honey producers as well as wool and mohair. There is no
reason just because you are not a row crop producer that you should not
have some type of assistance if you are going to lose your operations.
There is authority in this bill to enroll an additional 100,000 acres
in the Wetlands Reserve Program, and $35 million for the Natural
Resource and Conservation Service for technical assistance in relation
to that program, as well as the Conservation Reserve Program.
There is an additional $20 million in this program for cooperative
development, for new co-ops to help farmers and ranchers reposition to
meet the market in this very difficult period for them. Also there are
additional funds for water and sewer across our country. We just cannot
meet the entire need; the line of applicants is much longer than we are
able to accommodate. We have done the very best we could in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members, in spite of the
loopholes--and they are significant in the prescription drug provision
and the sanctions portions of the bill--to vote for this bill. Overall
the other provisions require our support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) for her kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies, and join with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
in her praise for the chairman's activity on this subcommittee.
He has been a great chairman and a great friend and has really worked
hard to balance the interests and needs of all the Members. I rise in
support of

[[Page H9691]]

this conference report, because it may be that this subcommittee has
produced maybe one of the most valuable appropriations bills that would
come before the House of Representatives, because it meets the needs of
human beings, their hunger needs, their food needs, and their medicine
needs.
It all comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I
especially appreciate that this is a further implementation of the
Freedom to Farm Act that we passed back in 1996, which the President
signed, and all of the Members of the House and Senate who cared deeply
about agriculture have needed to have this next step taken in the area
of lifting sanctions on food and medicine.
In that respect, I have been proud to work with the chairman and some
of my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, most
importantly, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), certainly
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Latham), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and on
the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Obey), and the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We have all worked hard.
We do not have a product that satisfies each of us and all of us, but
it is a great step forward as we lift sanctions on food and medicine
and establish a new policy for our country as it relates to the
imposition of sanctions unilaterally.
The President in the future, assuming he signs this bill, and I hope
that he will, will have the Congress as a partner in decisions that are
made about whether or not to impose sanctions on food and medicine
unilaterally by our country.
Helping in this effort have been other Members of the House of
Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) has been a great supporter; the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has
been a leader in this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to know that this is a new day
for trade sanctions. It is a new day for agriculture and trade policy
that says food and medicine should not be used as weapons of foreign
policy. This is workable, notwithstanding the people who might say nay
about it. This is going to work to benefit American agriculture. It is
going to work for Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba.
I certainly respect my friends on the other side of this issue
relating to Cuba, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). They are very patriotic,
good Americans who care deeply about the current sanctions policy in
our country.
I happen to disagree with their policy position; but they fervently
believe in it, and I respect that. We have tried to craft a measure
that would work for their needs and their particular positions and
policy decisions and those of us who care about the free trade side of
American agriculture. Mostly, I would say to my colleagues that I have
had a great staff that has helped get through this process, Rob Neal
and Jack Silzel, and as imperfect as the legislative process might be,
this is a good package. I hope it passes this House.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the very distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to
begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from New Mexico
(Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the
ranking minority member, as well as the full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. They have done a tremendous
job. In addition to facing the obstacle of unrealistic budget
restraints, they have once again had to struggle against a leadership
that is bent on subverting the expressed will of this House.
It is my fond hope that some day soon we will have an honest
conference on an agricultural bill with input from the administration
and from this side of the aisle in a true bipartisan result, but not
today.
As a direct result of the leadership's involvement, we have lost key
opportunities to move our country forward in both its trade relations
and with regard to the availability of affordable prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture embargo on U.S. sales to Cuba has done
little to change the behavior of this island nation. In fact, U.S.
sanctions have given Cuba an excuse for the failed policies of a
communist regime. With complete normalization of trade relations, Cuba
could become a $1 billion market for U.S. agriculture producers within
5 years, making it our second largest market in Latin America after
Mexico.
On July 20 of this year, the House by a vote of 301-116
overwhelmingly expressed its will to end our unilateral trade embargo,
and yet the provision inserted by the House leadership includes a
travel ban and restrictions on finance that will continue to undercut
the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to take full advantage of
Cuba's market potential.
The compromise in this bill gets us 5 percent of where we need to be.
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the implications of the
provision included in the conference report regarding trade sanctions.
While I am sympathetic to the goal of this provision, it should have
been withheld until we had a thorough analysis of all of its trade
effects and, particularly, its effect on agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, despite these inadequacies, this conference report
includes many good and important provisions, including funding,
conservation, research, rural development. It provides much-needed
assistance to agriculture producers affected by natural disasters. It
addresses the drinking water emergencies in rural areas brought about
by drought, and it will enact portions of the Hunger Relief Act that
will be crucial to ensuring that our neediest citizens are adequately
nourished.
Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report; and I thank my friend,
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes two
important provisions from the bipartisan Hunger Relief Act, of which I
am a proud co-sponsor. One of these would increase and then index the
cap on the excess shelter deduction. This arbitrary cap can result in
families with children having money they spend on their rent, mortgage,
and utilities being counted as if it was available to buy food. I hope
that in reauthorization, we can eliminate this cap altogether so that
families with children are treated in the same manner as elderly and
disabled households are now.
The other provision would give states broad flexibility to increase
or eliminate limits on the value of vehicles they may own and still
receive food stamps. For many low-income families, having a dependable
car is essential to their ability to find and keep employment. Denying
food assistance to a household based on the value of a vehicle makes no
sense: if the household sold the vehicle, it would become eligible for
food stamps but then would have a much harder time becoming more self-
sufficient. This provision allows states to adopt rules from any
program that receives TANF or TANF maintenance of effort funds as long
as that program provides benefits that could meet the definition of
``assistance'' in the TANF rules. This could include, for example, any
child care program since child care can count as assistance under
certain circumstances. States would not be required to determine
whether any particular individual received assistance from the TANF- or
MOE-funded program since that would impose administrative burdens and
whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. Where a
household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the option would
evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the lower
attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or the
rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the state
TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not apply
resources rules, those rules would prevail.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh).

[[Page H9692]]

{time} 1545

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent work that he
did in working through these very difficult issues.
It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. What we
accomplished on this bill, especially as it relates to our trade
policies, is exactly what is possible, no more, no less. But what we
have done, Mr. Speaker, is we made a historic change in our foreign
policy.
Hopefully never again will the United States use food and drug as a
weapon. Our farmers need all the markets that they can get. We should
never be putting ourselves in a position where we are cutting off
markets, because American farmers are the best in the world, the most
productive in the world, and we need to help them to get to the
markets.
The issue of reimportation of drugs, there has been an awful lot of
demagoguery about this on the other side. The fact of the matter is we
address it. For the first time, it is being addressed. I suppose if we
had not addressed it, we would have heard about that, too.
We have improved on the food stamps regulations for poor Americans.
Welfare reform did more for this country and its people than maybe any
other reform that has been passed in the last 25 years. More Americans
are productive. Fewer kids are in poverty. More Americans are healthy
because of that reform. But we had some minor changes to make in the
Hunger Relief Act, that will help States to address the issues of
moving people from welfare to work.
Disaster relief, disaster assistance for farmers, apple farmers,
dairy farmers, crop farmers, I think the Congress did a good job in a
bipartisan way of addressing disaster relief issues.
We have made major strides in improving the environment through the
Agriculture bill, primarily in the CRP program and also in agriculture
research. This is a broad bill, it is an expansive bill, it is an
important bill, and we need not focus on the warts and the scabs within
the overall legislation. We need to focus on what is good about this
bill and the commitment that we have made to the American farmer.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to rise in opposition to
the conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the
ranking member of the subcommittee, who I know have done their best to
put together an attractive proposal. But I believe we pay too high a
price in this legislation.
Several months ago, the House passed the Sanford amendment to the
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by a vote of 232 to 186,
prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce the travel restrictions on
Cuba, now we see, as the price paid to allow our farmers to export the
codification of restrictions which work against the very goals that the
proponents of those restrictions constantly proclaim they want.
The whole history of the downfall of tyranny comes from contact with
people from democracies, with human rights crusaders, with people who
want to establish people-to-people programs. Instead of allowing the
flexibility to move ahead and advance these kinds of programs and other
kinds of useful contacts, we codify a policy that, for 40 years, has
failed to achieve its primary goal.
That is a terrible mistake. It is a violation of the civil liberties
of the Americans and Americans right to travel. It undermines the very
goal we seek in our Cuba policy. For the life of me, I would love to
hear the explanation which prohibits export financing to Cuba but gives
waiver authority and discretion to the executive branch when we talk
about export financing of our exports to both Libya and to Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear the gentleman from Washington or
someone else defend that distinction.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favor of this bill
from several different standpoints: the standpoint of what the Nation
is benefiting and how my State of Arkansas is benefiting.
First of all, we have the importation of drugs that is going to be a
significant event in our Nation's battle against high drug prices. We
have got in this bill a $3 million appropriation that will help in the
construction for the National Center of Toxilogical Research in my
district that will handle the imports and examinations. The FDA will be
in charge of this, and they will handle the inspections on the drugs as
well as inspections on all other imports. It is a very significant
thing, and that bill is coming along and is going to be in place soon.
There is some education initiatives concerning timber. In our Forest
Service areas, we have a serious problem of how to manage that. We will
have a study of that in our University of Arkansas at Monticello.
We also have a seven-State program called Delta Teachers Academy that
will have a learning center in the UAPB campus in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
that will teach teachers how to teach. It will help them in doing that
in the Delta.
We have net catfish initiatives. The National Aquaculture Research
Center in Stuttgart, which is not in my district, but serves the Nation
in studying catfish yields, improving yields, food quality, disease
control and stress tolerance. We also have a specific appropriation for
an Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at UAPB, again, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
that concerns itself with the control of the commorants as they are
attacking the fish industry.
We have several different provisions also that will help catfish
farmers in that the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from denying
loans for catfish farmers in Arkansas for being in the floodplain.
All of these things plus others are the reasons why I am for this
bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a member of the
Agriculture authorizing committee.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, like many conference agreements, this one has a
provision that I am pleased with, and it has provisions that are not in
it that I am not pleased with.
Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the conference report because it
has many national priorities and local priorities that are important to
the Nation's constituents and my constituents.
Among the provisions that are in this agreement is funding for
modular housing for elderly North Carolinans who are flood victims,
funding for a critically needed drainage project in flood-ravaged
Princeville, North Carolina, and funding for the innovative
agrimedicine project designed to combat farm injuries and illness in
East Carolina University.
I am pleased to say that this agreement also includes very important
language to combat hunger. Important food stamp modifications are made
on the shelter cap and to the automobile cap.
While the WIC program did not receive all the funding it should have
or that was requested, nevertheless, $4.1 billion is vitally needed and
certainly will be used in this highly successful program.
This agreement includes significant funding for the emergency
disaster relief for farmers, for crop losses, restoration projects. The
agreement continues funding for agricultural research, education
extension, service activity.
I am, however, disappointed that the agreement only includes $3
million of the $6.8 million approved by the House funding going for
research to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Nonetheless, this agreement does offer some limited hope through this
limited increase. Hopefully, we would do better the next time.
The overall agreement is comprehensive and does include important
national priorities that deserve our support, and I urge its passage.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla).

[[Page H9693]]

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
agriculture appropriations bill. I think we all have to be reminded
constantly that this is a bill that helps agriculture first and
foremost.
But before I mention a couple of specifics, Mr. Speaker, I think for
the record this Member at least has considered it a tremendous honor to
work under the leadership of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman
Skeen) in this process. He is a person who sets the highest standard of
integrity and brings to work every day the highest commitment. The
character and the determination that he brings every day to work for
the betterment of agriculture in America is something that I will
always, always remember.
He is not going anywhere. But I think I speak for many of us on the
subcommittee who just cherished the time that we have had working under
his leadership on this subcommittee.
I want to specifically mention that this bill, again, does deal with
a lot of important aspects of agriculture assistance and relief,
drought, other natural disasters. Commodity prices over the years have
dealt a bad hand to many of our producers in this country. There is a
lot of assistance in this bill for that; $3.5 billion in economic
assistance that does not need to be held up in Washington any longer.
I know that there are Members who do not like that certain
commodities have received assistance in this bill as well. We have
attempted to do the right thing and address all commodities that have
suffered. We should not sit here and pick and choose who we help and
who we do not based on whether or not we like what we grow or the farm
programs that they operate under. They did not set the programs.
Congress did. Now we must help all areas of rural communities survive
in this very difficult time.
The bill also goes the extra mile to support farmers and ranchers.
Agriculture credit programs are increased by $14 million over fiscal
year 2000, and agriculture research has increased by $86 million. The
boll weevil eradication program is funded at $79 million. These are
just a few examples of how this bill will help our farmers and ranchers
and all of us who have large rural agriculture communities.
The word ought to get out that there is a true commitment in a
bipartisan way to help these folks who were really the salt of the
Earth, the producers of this country who were trying to compete in
international markets with other countries sometimes that subsidize
their producers in unfair ways.
There is a tremendous commitment by many of us, again, in a
bipartisan way to do what is right in this Agriculture appropriations
bill. I stand in strong support and would urge all of my colleagues to
do the same.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the incredibly hard working
ranking member of the Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her
kindness, amongst many others, to me.
Mr. Speaker, an otherwise acceptable bill has been very much hurt in
the conference report by the drug reimportation provisions. In a word,
they protect users of reimported pharmaceuticals very poorly if at all.
They put them at severe risk and hazard.
So I am going to tell my colleagues some of the things that are going
to happen as a result of these provisions so poorly studied by the
Congress and so ill attended to in committee.
Soon, Americans will be taking substandard, adulterated or
counterfeited imported drugs because of these provisions. These
provisions will do nothing to help lower the price of prescription
medicines and are no substitute for prescription pharmaceuticals to
senior citizens under Medicare.
Because FDA is already overwhelmed with inspecting foreign
manufacturers, it will not be able to handle the vast new
responsibilities being imposed upon it, and consumers will suffer and
be at risk.
In the coming years, FDA is going to be pilloried by politicians for
failing to protect Americans from bad prescription drugs which are
reimported under these provisions, when in fact the blame should fall
squarely upon the politicians in the 106th Congress.
Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went through the
committees with expertise or experience in these matters. It is going
to lead to needless injuries and deaths.
The world pharmaceutical market is a dangerous place, far more so
than my colleagues understand. Congressional investigations showed this
in the 1980s, and I know because I conducted those investigations. They
will show it now. My written statement will elaborate on this point.
My opposition to the drug reimportation provisions requires me to
vote against an otherwise acceptable bill.
I would note the American people want a decent prescription, not a
placebo, and they want one that is safe and one which will help their
health. This particular proposal will not. It puts Americans at risk. I
warn my colleagues what they are doing. I hope they will listen.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more
complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan
said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area.
All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the
comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate
myself with his remarks.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I
hope my colleagues will listen to what the gentleman just said because
we are putting the Nation and the senior citizens and others at risk.
Reimporting drugs is a dangerous and risky prospect. Doing so without
adequate protections and controls for the protection of consumers is a
still greater risk. I ask my colleagues to listen to what I say. There
is danger here they are not observing.
Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill. Although there are many very
good provisions addressing major agricultural needs, there is also a
very dangerous provision that would allow for the reimportation of
prescription drugs from foreign sources. That is something I cannot
support.
During the 1980's, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted
a lengthy investigation into the foreign drug market that ultimately
led to enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). That
investigation discovered a potentially dangerous diversion market that
prevented effective control over the true sources of drug products in a
significant number of cases. The distribution system was vulnerable to
the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective,
or even counterfeit pharmaceuticals. As the resulting Committee report
stated, ``pharmaceuticals which have been mislabeled, misbranded,
improperly stored or shipped, have exceeded their expiration dates, or
are bald counterfeits are injected into the national distribution
system for ultimate sale to consumers.''
The PDMA was designed to restore needed integrity and control over
the pharmaceutical market, eliminating actual and potential health and
safety problems before injury to the consumer could occur. Again, the
Committee report was clear on why the PDMA was needed:

[R]eimported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in
two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as
reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution
system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate
pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by U.S. law once the
drugs have left the boundaries of the United States.

I find nothing today that suggests that the problem with misbranded,
adulterated, or even counterfeit foreign drugs has been solved, and if
anything, the problem may be getting worse. I am thus concerned that in
our haste to find a way to bring cheaper drugs to seniors and other
needy Americans--a clearly important and laudable goal--we risk making
changes to key health and safety laws we may later regret.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
held a hearing that underscored that the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and thus unable to
consistently undertake the many tasks now required to protect the U.S.
drug supply. At that hearing, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney testified
that FDA has insufficient post-market surveillance resources to keep
pace with its current

[[Page H9694]]

mandate. Consequently, the agency is lagging in conducting inspections
of firms that ship drug products to the U.S., and this burden is only
going to worsen in the future.
The legislation in question today only exacerbates this already-
serious problem. As envisioned by this proposal, FDA will newly be
responsible for inspecting the entire custody chain between all parties
and processes involved in the shipment of drugs back to the U.S.
market. This could include repackaging and relabeling facilities, as
well as the many storage firms that might be used in this process. This
proposal would also ultimately require FDA to oversee the formation of
new testing facilities, and develop regulations to address numerous
safety concerns ignored by this proposal. In short, the reimport
legislation will inundate an already overburdened FDA with new
responsibilities. Worse, it will do so without any assurances that the
agency will ever see the approximately $92 million it claims it needs
to fully implement this plan. Instead, the bill only gives $23 million
for a single year, or one-fourth of what the plan will ultimately
require. Given the fact that the agency is already significantly
underfunded, I see almost no chance it will see this money.
But even if Congress were to provide the additional resources, I
remain skeptical that FDA could even construct a global regulatory
framework as safe as what is now in place. FDA was unsuccessful in
preventing counterfeit and substandard drugs from entering the U.S.
before the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) went into effect, and
so I doubt it will be successful once many of its protections are
undermined by this legislation.

Moreover, it is particularly troubling that drug prices may not even
be significantly lowered as a result of this proposal. There is nothing
that guarantees that in this process of undermining our current
regulatory system, lower priced drugs will become available to needy
Americans. Wholesalers may not pass on any accrued savings to the
public, nor is it clear that they will necessarily be able to access a
steady supply for resale. In fact, this bill is riddled with numerous
loopholes that will allow manufacturers to label or produce their
products in a form that makes them either impossible or cost-
prohibitive to reimport. The notion that this bill will create an
abundance of cheap, properly labeled, and properly repackaged drugs,
easily available to reimporters, is simply false.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes long-term changes to the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act, without the benefit of even a single legislative
hearing. During the 1980's, the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted
a lengthy multi-year investigation resulting in numerous hearings
before any related legislation was drafted. There have been no public
hearings regarding this legislation, as most of this process has
involved closed-door proceedings. With the many implications this
legislation will have on public health and safety, this process has
ill-served the public and is indefensible.
In conclusion, this provision represents the flawed implementation of
a risky concept. Many of the Members supporting this legislation
believe they are doing the right thing by helping Americans get access
to cheaper medicine, and assume that medicine will, in fact, be safe. I
agree that medicine needs to be cheaper, but disagree that reimported
medicine will be as safe. We know too much about the kinds of drug
manufacturing and distribution shenanigans that take place in other
parts of the world to allow our system to be jeopardized by the
legislation contained in this spending bill. It is flawed legislation
that will, if passed in its present form, result in significant harm to
the very persons we are trying to help. Thus, I cannot support this
bill.

{time} 1600

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say
how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his
last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute
pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen).
I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but
because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this
subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much
I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New
Mexico and for the rest of the country.
And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with
the interest we all have in agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We
have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with
hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies,
their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of
the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in
this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as
far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country,
is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people
who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in
contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their
hearts out in the countryside.
There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in
addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency
disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there
is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to
use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have
opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas.
Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and
throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53
million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding
for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than
what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings
with the President.
We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our
people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue
for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran,
Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major
breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so
that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look
to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here
in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea,
Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us.
I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would
like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least
have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can
advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change
countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very,
very much want.
Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining
time on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) has 10 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), the very able member of the Committee on
International Relations.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4461 in its current form,
but in strong support of ending the embargo on the sale of food and
medicine to Cuba. Our current policy toward Cuba was created in the
early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall has now
crumbled, the Soviet Union has vanished, but this archaic policy is
still here.
For 40 years, 40 years, we have maintained a blockade on trade and
food and medicine with Cuba, and we have put severe restrictions on
travel by American citizens. We must lift that blockade without
imposing new barriers. However, this bill codifies current restrictions
on Americans travel to Cuba. What, I must ask, is our country afraid
of? How can it be against our interests for our citizens, our most
effective ambassadors, to travel to Cuba?
How can we live in the greatest democracy in the world and restrict
the travel of our own citizens? Americans should have the right to see
Cuba for themselves. They should have the right to form their own
judgments about this Afro-Hispanic island 90 miles away from our
shores.
I have led and participated in many delegations to Cuba in an effort
to promote education, understanding and cultural exchange between our
countries. I have seen a child with kidney

[[Page H9695]]

disease in grave danger because the embargo prevented the importation
of a U.S.-made part for a dialysis machine at this hospital. And I have
seen Cuba's health care system, which guarantees its own citizens
universal health care, which we still cannot figure out how to do.
We should allow anyone and everyone who wants to travel to Cuba to do
so without fear of breaking the law and going to jail. I urge my
colleagues to oppose restrictions on travel to Cuba in this bill and
vote ``no'' on H.R. 4461.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I rise in
support of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for the tremendous leadership he has given all of us
over the last several years, fighting hard for our producers, helping
us deliver emergency and disaster aid. I do not know anyone who has
worked as forthrightly and on a consensus basis as the gentleman from
New Mexico has, and I want to thank him. We will miss him tremendously
as our leader next year, but I do thank him.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the
excellent work she does and for her dedication to supporting American
agriculture as well.
I want to say that this is a great bill. I wish in a couple of
instances we could have done more, particularly on the issue of
agriculture embargoes, which the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) has championed so well. But even though it does not go
quite as far with regard to Cuba, let us not forget that we are also
dealing with four other countries against whom we have had sanctions on
food and medicine, and this represents a $6 billion market potential
for our producers.
We are all so caught up in the emotion of Cuba that we forget, quite
frankly, that it is the other countries that present the biggest
opportunity for our producers, and I did not want to let that go
without mentioning it.
I also am very pleased that we have included in the emergency
assistance package a piece that is very similar to the stand-alone
legislation that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I
introduced, doubling the loan deficiency payment, particularly when our
farmers and ranchers are in such dire straits for the third year in a
row.
But let me end by addressing the entire issue of reimportation once
again, and say that all of the loopholes that have been recognized on
the part of my colleagues on the other side are loopholes that really
will not exist if in fact we are determined to work closely with the
Food and Drug Administration to make this legislation work.
Number one, dealing with the issue of labeling. Let me reiterate
again that the President said he liked the language in the Jeffords
bill that passed the Senate. This is the exact language on labeling
which is in the Jeffords bill. The President urged the Senate to send
him the legislation so he could sign it, as long as the appropriate
money was there to implement it. We have, in fact, included $23 million
that the FDA requested for this year to do just that.
On the issue of contracts. Let me say once again that while we have
not included the exact language that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) wanted, we have in fact included language that does prevent a
manufacturer from limiting or entering into any kind of contractor or
agreement that prevents the sale or distribution of covered products
for reimportation purposes.
So all in all I think this is an excellent bill and I urge a ``yes''
vote, and I again thank the chairman for the great job that he has
done.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in
order to place in the Record language from the New York Times this
morning refuting what my very dear colleague, the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), has indicated.
It says Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and Drug, said,
``Nothing in the bill requires a manufacturer to give the approved
label to an importer or to allow use of the label by an importer, which
means that it is not enforceable.''
And then today we receive from the Office of the President, the
Office of Management and Budget, the following. And I enter the direct
language in the Record because in the future we will have to repair the
damage that is going to be done when this bill is passed today. It
says, ``The administration is disappointed that the prescription drug
reimportation provision in this bill will fail to achieve its goal of
providing needed relief from the high costs of prescription drugs. The
majority leadership chose to end bipartisan negotiations and, instead,
produced a provision in the conference report that leaves numerous
loopholes that will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it
allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to FDA-approved
labeling required for reimportation so that any and all drug companies
could, and probably would, block reimportation of their medications.
Second, a sunset was added that ends the importation system 5 years
after it goes into effect. This will limit private and public sector
interest in investing in this system.''
And I would just depart from that to say to my colleague that sunset
was not in the Jeffords bill, as the gentlewoman indicated earlier
today.
And, finally, third, this letter says, ``The conference language
permits the drug industry to use contracts or agreements to provide
financial disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S.
importers. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the highest prices in the
world for medications, leaving many with no option than to go abroad to
obtain affordable prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide
false hope that this provision will work to address the problem.
Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful Medicare
prescription drug benefit that will not only provide price discounts
but will ensure seniors and people with disabilities against the
catastrophic costs of medications.''
That is a direct quote from the Executive Office of the President.
And, Mr. Speaker, the full content of the statement is as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies.)

h.r. 4461--agriculture, rural development, food and drug
administration, and related agencies appropriations bill fy 2001

(Sponsors: Skeen (R), New Mexico; Cochran (R) Mississippi)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the
Administration's views on the conference version of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.
The conference report includes support for a number of
important priorities for the Nation. In particular, the bill
includes full funding for the President's Food Safety
Initiative, significant increases in rural development
programs to help rural communities and residents take part in
the national economic expansion, provisions that will enable
food stamp recipients to own dependable cars and have better
shelter without losing their eligibility, and relief to
farmers and ranchers who suffered losses from natural
disasters. While the Administration continues to support a
range of conservation efforts, such as the Farmland
Protection Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental Quality
Incentives Programs, and is disappointed that this bill did
not provide full funding for these efforts, we do appreciate
the increases that were provided including funds for
conservation technical assistance. However, while the
Administration supports this conference report, it has
concerns with several provisions in the bill.
The Administration is disappointed that the prescription
drug reimportation provision in this bill will fail to
achieve its goal of providing needed relief from the high
costs of prescription drugs. The majority leadership chose to
end bipartisan negotiations and instead produced a provision
in the conference report that leaves numerous loopholes that
will render this provision meaningless. Specifically, it
allows drug manufacturers to deny importers access to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling required
for reimportation so that any and all drug companies could--
and probably would--block reimportation of their medications.
Second, a ``sunset'' was added that ends the importation
system five years after it goes into effect. This will limit
private and public sector interest in investing in this
system. Third, the conference language permits the drug
industry to use contracts or agreements to provide financial
disincentives for foreign distributors to reimport to U.S.
importers. Finally, despite the Administration's repeated
requests, the conference requires FDA to pay for the costs
associated with this provision from within resources needed
to perform its other important public

[[Page H9696]]

health activities. It is wrong that U.S. citizens pay the
highest prices in the world for medications, leaving many
with no other option than to go abroad to obtain affordable
prescription drugs. But it is also wrong to provide false
hope that this provision will work to address this problem.
Moreover, Congress has thus far failed to pass a meaningful
Medicare prescription drug benefit that will not only provide
price discounts but will insure seniors and people with
disabilities against the catastrophic costs of medications.
On the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
of 2000,'' which is included in the conference report, there
are two major concerns to the Administration. First, the
restrictions on the ability of the President to initiate new
sanctions and maintain old ones are overly stringent. This
effectively disarms the President's ability to conduct
foreign policy while providing potential targets of U.S.
actions with the time to take countermeasures. Second, the
provisions of the bill affecting travel to Cuba would
significantly set back our people-to-people exchanges that
are in the interest of opening up Cuban society. They also
would preclude travel by technicians and others needed to
conduct normal business by the U.S. Interests Section in
Havana, as well as travel for humanitarian purposes.
With respect to the provision, ``Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' the Administration agrees with
the findings that state that unfair trade laws have as their
purpose the restoration of conditions of fair trade. However,
that is the purpose of the anti-dumping and counter-vailing
duties themselves, which accomplish that purpose. By raising
the price of imports they shield domestic producers from
import competition and allow domestic manufacturers to raise
prices, increase production, and improve revenues.
Consequently, distribution of the tariffs themselves to
producers is not necessary to the restoration of conditions
of fair trade. In addition, there are significant concerns
regarding administrative feasibility and consistency with our
trade policy objectives, including the potential for trading
partners to adopt similar mechanisms. Such concerns were
raised and examined with regard to a similar proposal
considered during passage of the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act. That proposal was ultimately rejected.
In addition, the Administration believes the provision
removing the authority of USDA's Undersecretary for Natural
Resources and the Environment has no justification, will
interfere with the agency's ability to manage itself
effectively, and sets a highly undesirable precedent.
The Administration is also disappointed that the bill
prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from designating any
part of a USDA research lab in Ft. Reno, Oklahoma, as surplus
land, thereby preventing any consideration of returning land
to the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe. The Secretary should retain
his authority to effectively manage USDA property and
consider its alternative uses.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, who is so very passionate and committed and
intelligent.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this conference report
because it includes language that is against the will of this body.
Mr. Speaker, there is a United States embargo against Cuba. The
blockade serves no real purpose but to satisfy the Florida anti-Fidel
Castro Cubans who wish to direct the will of this House.
The people of Cuba need food and medicine. The children are in
desperate need of these supplies that we could easily sell to Cuba.

{time} 1615

The United States Chamber of Commerce has been to Cuba, the Farm
Bureau has been to Cuba, and many members of the agriculture caucus of
this body have been down to Cuba, and they are all desirous of lifting
this embargo, at least to be able to sell food and medicine.
However, some Members of this House are captives of those Cubans in
Florida who have not only tried everything that they can to keep this
embargo intact but they have also influenced certain Members of this
body to get involved with placing further travel restrictions in this
bill.
We have done very well with travel to Cuba. Many Americans go there.
We have academic exchange. We have cultural exchange. And it is working
very well.
If people are desirous of seeing Cuba, the Cuba that they think it
should be, it is only because there is people-to-people contact. But
having codified these travel restrictions, we have now placed this in
jeopardy.
Well, this meager, little attempt to sell to Cuba without having any
financial infrastructure to do so, no credit from the United States
financial institutions or government, is not going to work. We are
undermining the very efforts of those who would like to sell
agricultural products and food and medicine to Cuba.
I would ask for a no vote. This is a wrong-headed policy.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue that the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) spoke about and say I brought this
up earlier.
Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to Smith
Kline Beecham on an appeal because they were concerned that FDA was
allowing a generic drug company to copy their labels. The Supreme Court
would not take the issue.
Basically, I will read the judge's ruling. It says, ``We hold that
Hatch-Waxman amendments to the existing Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
require generic drug sellers to use labeling that may infringe the
copyright in the label of the pioneer drug. We further hold that, as a
result, copyright liability cannot attach to Watson's use of Smith
Kline's label.''
Therefore, allowing the copying of the label. And in the language
that we have in the legislation, there is broad enough language giving
the Secretary and the FDA the discretion to require this.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of this debate today about
importation and reimportation. I would like to talk for a minute about
how I got involved in this debate. It was because our own Food and Drug
Administration has been and even to this day is sending out threatening
letters to senior citizens who try to save a few bucks on prescription
drugs. That is how I got into this debate.
Now, some people are saying, well, it does not go far enough; and
some people are saying it goes too far. I am reminded of what Winston
Churchill said the day after the invasion at Normandy. He said, ``This
is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. This is
simply the end of the beginning.''
This debate on opening up the market and creating more competition
for prescription drugs is not over. This is the beginning.
But, at least, for the first time in 8 years, the Congress is sending
a clear message that the threatening letters to seniors for trying to
save a few bucks on prescription drugs is going to end. And if it does
not end, by the grace of the voters in my district, I will be back and
I will be working with people from all sides of the aisle.
I do not like some of the restrictions that were put on in the
conference committee. But I know this, we have made more progress in
the last 3 weeks on this issue than this administration has made in 8
years. And I think it is good progress, and I think we are going to see
prescription drug prices coming down.
Let me just show my colleagues this chart again. Look at what people
pay in the United States compared to the rest of the world.
Why are we sending threatening letters to seniors?
This bill may not be perfect, but it is a giant step in the right
direction. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Missouri and those of my
colleagues who had the courage to stand by and fight for this issue
because I think, in the years to come, we are going to see prescription
drug prices in the United States come down dramatically.
I would hope we will do this on a bipartisan basis. I do not think
saving money for seniors is a partisan issue.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
First of all, let me just say there is a lot of good things in this
bill for agriculture. I commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman
Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their hard work
in the committee.

[[Page H9697]]

Second of all, I would like to say that the reimportation issue that
we have worked on is not a long-term solution to the problem but it
certainly moves forward. It is not perfect but it certainly is going to
enhance the ability of Americans and Maineards to be accessing low-
cost, affordable prescription medicine.
Now, maybe there is a better way to do it. Maybe there is an easier
way to do it. And that probably is by being able to amend Medicare to
be able to have this part of the program universally offered. But that
is not the issue we have before us. Our seniors need relief.
I want to commend the gentlewoman for working together on this issue,
recognizing that there have been differences and it is not a perfect
piece of legislation. But I do think it is going to go a long way. We
have 325,000 seniors in Maine that do not have access to low-cost,
affordable prescription medicine or insurance. This will afford the
State an opportunity to negotiate to be able to have access to this
pricing so we can do better for its seniors, and that is something that
we should be supporting.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds only to say that
the reason, I say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) that
we do not have prescription drug legislation is because this Congress
did not pass it. And this is our only chance, and, unfortunately, a
flawed bill is being presented as the only option that a few people
here negotiated on their own, not in a bipartisan way.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Ganske).
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill. But I
think before we be too self-congratulatory, we should be modest,
particularly in regards to the provisions on the Cuba agricultural
trade issue and on the reimportation issue. There are many areas in
both of those provisions that we should strengthen. And we will be back
next year I predict and we are going to strengthen those.
I consider this a small step forward on both of those. And so, I am
going to vote for the bill. But just one of the provisions on the
reimportation says that first an importer must get the drug tested and
then get the manufacturer to supply the paperwork to the pharmacist.
What will happen then? The manufacturers will know every pharmacist
that is reimporting drugs. Maybe the next time that pharmacist needs to
have a drug from that pharmaceutical company they will find that the
pharmaceutical company does not have enough drugs to provide them.
These are the types of things that we should have debated more fully
and had some amendments on. But I do think the bill should move forward
and I will vote for it, and I encourage a yes vote from all of our
colleagues.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) a very outspoken Member and a very able Member.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her persistence and consistent
work dealing with agriculture in the United States. And I thank the
chairman of the committee.
I am from Texas. And there is a lot of agricultural business and work
in Texas. There are also a lot of issues dealing with the needs of
hungry people in the agriculture bill.
But it disturbs me greatly and I have expressed my consternation and
opposition in voting against the previous question how we would ignore
the thousands of seniors in my congressional district who are already
aware that they cannot finance food and rent and prescription drugs,
and then to ignore a bipartisan effort on the question of drug
reimportation seems to be the height of hypocrisy.
This bill claims to have a drug reimportation provision, but it
allows drug companies and their intermediaries to price discriminate
against U.S. pharmacies and importers. It sunsets the legislation so we
cannot even put in a reasonable infrastructure to encourage our
pharmaceuticals and others to engage in this program. It allows drug
manufacturers to block the importation of drugs through labeling
because it does not allow the use of FDA-approved labeling. And we have
gotten our consumers very label conscious.
And so, this is a death knell for the legislation. And it does not
guarantee American consumers access to the best world market price
because it restricts the countries eligible for importation even though
the FDA agrees that safety standards for imported drugs are high enough
to allow access to the entire world market.
Our neighbor in Texas, of which many of my constituents go to,
Mexico, has been excluded, one of the largest countries in the southern
hemisphere where thousands of seniors are already busing themselves to
get cheaper drugs.
This is a poor statement on a crisis in America. It is a tragedy that
we be so hypocritical. I am sorry we have used the agricultural vehicle
for such a legislative initiative. I hope, Mr. Speaker, we can fix this
problem.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer mixed sentiments regarding the
consideration of the conference report for our Nation's Agriculture
appropriations. First and foremost this legislative effort represents
our plans for our Nation's food source for the next year, but this bill
is much more because it touches prescription drug reimportation into
the United States.
The measure appropriates $78.5 billion--$3.0 billion (4 percent more
than the House bill, 4 percent more than the Senate measure and 2
percent more than requested by the administration. The agreement
includes $3.6 billion in emergency funding to aid farmers hurt by
disasters and low commodity prices; the House bill had provided only
$115 million in emergency aid to apple and potato growers, while the
Senate measure had $2 billion in disaster relief.
Over 75 percent ($59.8 billion) of the total budget authority
provided by the agreement in FY 2001 is mandatory spending for
entitlement programs, including $20.1 billion for the food stamp
program. The remainder ($18.7 billion) is for discretionary programs.
The discretionary spending in the bill is $4.7 billion more than the FY
2000 appropriation and $3.2 billion more than the administration's
request.
As has been the case with the last couple of agriculture
appropriations bills, this year's measure broke with a tradition of
easy passage and has been complicated by various issues. At the top of
the list of things stalling the measure has been a proposal to relax
trade sanctions against food and medicine sales to Cuba and other so-
called rogue nations. In addition, proposals to ease Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) rules for importing drugs and address rising
prescription drug prices slowed the measure's progress dramatically.
Finally, settling on emergency funding levels to aid farmers recovering
from disasters and struggling with low commodity prices also proved
difficult. Negotiators developed compromise language on each of these
contentious issues during conference action.
This bill also makes an historic step toward removing the last
vestiges of the cold-war era by instituting conditions for trade with
Cuba. The agreement lifts current economic sanctions to allow shipments
of food and medicine to Cuba among other nations. In the case of Cuba,
the measure bars public and private United States financing of Cuban
agricultural purchases. It also codifies restrictions (currently
implemented by executive order) on Americans traveling to Cuba. This is
an unfortunate result and this Congress should work to change this
stifling action that will impair efforts to help the Cuban people.
The agreement purports to allow pharmacies and wholesalers to buy
American-made prescription drugs abroad and reimport them into the
United States. Unfortunately there is a loophole in this legislation,
which may allow drug manufacturers to continue charging higher prices
for medicine to our Nation's elderly who so desperately need relief.
Under this legislation the drug companies will be allowed to continue
to market the same drugs that Americans have to pay higher prices for
under different names in Mexico and Canada. Further, there is language
in this bill, which will allow drug companies to restrict the marketing
of these drugs under their cheaper names back here in the United
States. Once again the American public is being told that Congress is
responding to the problem of the high cost of prescription drugs in
this country, but yet again there is a loophole for the consumer to
fall through. This Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to
offer financial relief to the millions of elderly Americans who have to
choose each month between paying their bills, purchasing food, paying
rent, or buying vital medicine.
I would like to acknowledge that this conference does include as much
as $3.4 million of the $6.8 million I requested be set aside for the
1890 Land Grant Colleges, which also includes many of our Nation's
Historically Black

[[Page H9698]]

Colleges and Universities, for research activity. Historically these
institutions of higher learning received marginal increases and have
been level funded for the last 5 years. The amendment will increase
research activities by $4 million and extension activities by $2.8
million for the 1890's land grant institutions. This $6.8 million
increase will be deducted from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
funding included in the bill.
I had hoped that the conference committee members would have deemed
it more than reasonable to fund this area to the full $6.8 million that
was requested. Given the fact that the minority 1890 Land Grant
Colleges did not receive any land-grant funding from the United States,
unlike other land grant colleges, prior to 1967 with formulary funding
not beginning until 1972. Since 1988 Federal funding for agriculture
programs has declined by 8 percent and the base funding that supports
agricultural scientists and extension educators has eroded by 16
percent. This has obviously had a devastating negative impact on the
1890's. Federal support for basic research in the decades since the
1950's has decreased from an annual growth rate of 22.9 percent in the
1950's to 2 percent in the current decade. Flat support for food and
agricultural sciences compounded by the lack of adequate state matching
funds have created an alarming erosion in the conduct of 1890 research
and extension services. Although the Congress encouraged States to
provide a 30-percent match for 1890 landgrant programs in FY2000,
several 1890's are facing nearly insurmountable barriers in getting
states to comply.
I hope that the actions taken in this bill to provide additional
dollars to 1890 Land Grant Colleges will mark a new era of Federal
support to these Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Within the measure's $34.1 billion for domestic food programs is $4.1
billion ($37 million less than requested) for the women, infants and
children (WIC) program. The bill appropriates $873 million ($5 million
less than requested) for conservation programs; $973 million ($39
million more than requested) for the Agricultural Research Service; and
$1.5 billion ($84 million less than requested) for the Rural Housing
Service. It also provides the administration's request of $973 million
for the PL-480 Food for Peace Program.
In addition, the measure modifies the eligibility rules regarding
automobile ownership and monthly housing costs for food stamp
recipients. Current law prohibits food stamp recipients from owning a
car worth more than $4,650 or paying monthly housing costs of more than
$275. Under the agreement, States could set their own caps for the
vehicle allowance and gradually raise the housing cap over 5 years to
$340 per month.
I would like to thank the conferees that worked on this conference
report. However, I will vote ``no'' on the rule because of several
failings in the bill and I will reluctantly vote ``yes'' on the
legislation.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey) the sponsor of the key amendment that would have
prevented drug companies from discriminating against U.S. importers and
would have ensured that U.S. importers could purchase drugs on the same
terms and conditions as foreign purchasers.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my profound
appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman
of the subcommittee, for the work that he has done and the leadership
that he has provided on this initiative, along with the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member. It has been a
profound pleasure to serve on the subcommittee with both of these
Members.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill in many respects. The agriculture
bill here contains increases in farm conservation and rural development
programs. It contains important increases in rural housing, business,
and utilities programs that are critical to small communities across
the country.
In addition, it contains important recognition for the Rural Economic
Area Partnership Zone Program. It also includes funding for important
agricultural research initiatives.
In addition, it contains a little more than $3 billion in critical
emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers who have suffered through
another year of bad weather and low prices.
There is also $138 million for apple farmers struggling to overcome
loss of markets and devastating weather that have occurred over the
last 3 years.
I want to make it clear, that particular provision for specialty
crops was originated in this House in the Subcommittee on Agriculture
Appropriations and nowhere else. So, for the first time, apple farmers
and other growers of specialty crops are going to get recognition for
the difficult circumstances under which they operate.
This bill is a good bill. It provides assistance for dairy farmers,
$1.6 billion in crop losses for all farms all across the country. All
farmers are going to benefit from it.
So if my colleagues are going to vote for this bill, as I am, vote
for it for the agriculture and the rural development provisions in the
bill, all of which are exemplary and good. Do not vote for it for the
provision on prescription drugs. Because the prescription drug
provision in this bill is a shell, it is a fake, it is a sham. It will
not provide prescription drugs at reduced prices for any American
anywhere. It is designed precisely in that way, to prevent any
consideration to reduce prices of pharmaceuticals imported from Canada
or anywhere else because the bill fails to recognize the ability of the
pharmaceutical companies to insert language that will prevent that from
happening.

{time} 1630

This is a good bill in many respects. However, it leaves to the next
Congress the necessity to deal with the issue of the high cost of
prescription drugs in America.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just wanted to end by pointing out an important clarification here.
The gentlewoman from Missouri indicated there was a Supreme Court case
or an appeals court case and inferred that it supported her point of
view.
Let me say that the Supreme Court declined to review the SmithKline
case so the appeals court stands. If the law requires you to use
labels, you must. And that is exactly what the Democratic amendment
required, exactly what the Waxman amendment required, exactly what the
DeLauro amendment required in the subcommittee markup.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the judge said that they hold that the
Hatch-Waxman amendments that already exist to the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act require the labeling be used, be given by the drug
manufacturer to the generic which means then, or to the reimporter in
our particular case, and that it is not an infringement of copyright
liability and, therefore, the drug company will have to provide the
labeling under the discretion of the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion
in this area and, therefore, all of that is covered in the language
that exists in the bill that we are about to vote to pass.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal about what the bill does do
and does not do in terms of two provisions, prescription drug
reimportation and trade sanctions. I would like to remind my colleagues
that both of these issues more properly belong in an authorization
bill, not appropriations. But they are here in our bill and represent
some progress in helping our senior citizens get affordable medicines
and helping our farmers and ranchers sell more of their products. That
is a great marriage.
If Members want to criticize this bill for what is not there, then I
would remind them that this bill also does not have campaign finance
reform, it does not have managed health care reform, and it does not
guarantee peace in the Middle East. What this bill does, among other
things, is improve our environmental and water resources, provide food
and nutrition for the vulnerable in our society, protect our food and
medical supplies, and keep our system of agriculture the best and the
strongest in the world.
Oddly enough, that is what this appropriations bill is supposed to
do. That is why every Member of this body should recognize the good
that this bill will do for their constituents and vote ``aye.''
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, while I am troubled by the failure of this
measure to include funding for the disaster that befell our onion
farmers in 1999, I will support this measure because it provides
vitally important assistance to many farmers, growers of speciality

[[Page H9699]]

crops and dairy farmers as well as the agricultural communities in my
district.
I would also like to express my concerns over provisions in this bill
in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Title relating to
Iran and other nations on the list of terrorist nations. We should, in
my view, not be modifying our present policies toward Iran and Libya
where we have in place a de facto prohibition against government credit
for our exports to those countries.
The waiver on the prohibition on financing for commercial exports to
Iran, Libya, North Korea or Sudan for national security purposes is, in
my view, overly broad. Next year, we need to revisit this issue so we
can ensure that the U.S. Taxpayer is not supporting commercial exports
to terrorist countries, unless there are urgent humanitarian reasons to
do so.
We also need to clarify that in providing licenses for the export of
goods or services to countries promoting international terrorism under
the current guidelines of the Department of the Treasury, we should
keep the procedures in place for the denial of each and every license
for any export to a person or group found to be promoting acts of
international terrorism.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I believe overall that the Agriculture
Appropriations Conference report is a very good bill. It contains many
admirable provisions including language that would allow the
reimportation of prescription drugs. Data shows that a single does of a
drug that costs a senior citizen $1 in the United States only cost 64
cents in Canada, while in Italy the same drug costs only 51 cents. I
support drug reimportation--I am convinced this is one way to reduce
the cost of prescription drug prices without imposing price controls or
burdensome regulations on drug manufacturers. Indeed, I voted in favor
of these provisions when the Agriculture Appropriations bill first
passed the House and I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1885, the International
Prescription Drug Parity Act, which contains many similar provisions.
Also included is funding for a number of initiatives which I strongly
favor, including $1.5 million for pink bollworm control programs,
$500,000 for aflatoxin research in Arizona. $5 million for the Water
conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory move from Phoenix to the
University of Arizona's Maricopa Agriculture Center (MAC), $495,000 for
the International Arid Lands Consortium (administered by UA), $369,000
for the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources,
$200,000 for hesperaloe and other natural products from desert plants
research (conducted by UA), and $4,177,000 for shrimp aquaculture
research. And I voted for a bill which contains these provisions when
it passed the House on July 11, 2000.
However, during conference deliberations on the Agriculture
Appropriations bill, an amendment was inserted into the bill that was
not considered by an committee in either the House or Senate. This
provision has serious repercussions for U.S. industry. Because of my
strong opposition to this provision, I will reluctantly vote against
this bill today.
Under the amendment adopted in the Agriculture Appropriations
conference report, antidumping and countervailing duties which are
currently paid by the importing industry would be transferred from the
U.S. Treasury Department directly in the petitioning company. This is a
major change in our current antidumping and countervailing duty laws
with potentially disastrous consequences. Under current law,
antidumping or countervailing duties are assessed to offset the dumping
or subsidy and paid to the U.S. Treasury. Payment of the duties
readjusts the market to replicate conditions as if dumping or
subsidization had not occurred. The theory behind this law is to level
the playing field between U.S. producers and foreign importers so that
each may compete fairly for access to U.S. consumers. The provision
inserted into the Agriculture Appropriations bill does much more--it
double compensates the petitioner by no only offsetting the alleged
injury, but also providing a windfall subsidy to the petitioner.
This provision will encourage other countries to adopt a similar
industry subsidy. U.S. exporters facing dumping duties will end up
directly subsidizing their competitors instead of paying duties to a
foreign government. Because U.S. companies are the biggest targets of
AD/CVD actions, this threatens our exports.

Subsidization of industry by any government which is a member of the
World Trade Organization violates the WTO Agreement on Subsidies on
Countervailing Measures. The U.S. Government supported this Agreement
because we sought to eliminate foreign subsidies which undercut the
ability of U.S. industry to compete abroad. Payment of AD/CVD duties
violates the Agreement which could lead to retaliatory tariffs against
innocent U.S. exporters.
The lure of a potential monetary windfall could spur additional
litigation under our AD/CVD laws. In order to be eligible for the
potential windfall, U.S. industry would be encouraged to join in the
filing of AD/CVD petitions. Otherwise, they would not be eligible for
any payments which might be made under this new provision. Furthermore,
the promise of monetary compensation would take away any incentive to
enter into ``suspension agreements'' or settlements whereby a foreign
producer agrees not to sell below an agreed price in an antidumping
case. More cases means more duties, on the backs of this U.S.
industries which depend on steady supplies of products which may
subject to AD/CVD.
Because of the serious implications of this ill-considered provision,
I am reluctantly voting against the Agriculture Appropriations
conference report.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly voted against this bill
though there is much in it that merits support. However, the benefits
accorded to farmers in this bill are disproportionately skewed to large
operations, not to smaller-scale, family farms. If people want to step
back and provide benefits for small farms, I will be the first to look
at ways that we can do that in a cooperative fashion. But this bill is
not targeted. We continue to pour unprecedented sums to agriculture
without addressing the apparent failure of the so-called ``Freedom to
Farm'' bill.
Several provisions illustrate the lost opportunities. We missed an
opportunity with Cuba in this bill. We successfully trade with China.
Why can't we pursue a rational trade policy with Cuba? Cuba trade will
hasten the departure of Fidel Castro, leader of one of the last
remaining bastions of communism.
There is a rider for the sugar industry buried in this conference
report that subverts the reform the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill was
supposed to usher in. It will do nothing to change the $352 million in
loan defaults taxpayers are paying this year, no GAO's estimated $1.9
billion cost of the sugar program to consumers.
As pointed out in an October 1 editorial in the Washington Post, the
drug reimportation language in this bill is unlikely to do much to
address the problem of affordability of prescription drugs. The five-
year time limit on the bill will significantly minimize the
effectiveness of this token effort to address the skyrocketing cost of
pharmaceuticals. These narrow provisions won't have the impact for our
seniors that real solutions to the prescription drug crisis world have.
This bill does not do enough to address the serious problem of hunger
in the United States. Even in this time of unprecedented prosperity,
many families are hungry. Oregon has one of the highest rates of hunger
in the nation. Yet, the conference report provides less funding to food
stamp programs, less funding to school breakfast and lunch programs,
and less funding to the WIC programs than what was originally allocated
in the House and Senate versions of this bill.
We can do better.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to being attention to one of the
concerns I have with this bill. To be specific, I was very troubled to
find that the conference report being considered today includes
language which restricts funding for the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative (AHRI).
When this bill first came to the floor in June, it included language
which prohibited funding for the Natural Resources Conservation service
(NRCS) from being used for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I
offered an amendment to strike this language out, and it was adopted
with unanimous support from this body.
In light of this body's support for my amendment--and the fact that
no such similar language was in the bill passed by the other body--it
is difficult to understand why the conferees found it appropriate to
include the restrictive language in the conference report. As I have
noted on the floor in the past, I understand that some enmity exists
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative by those who feel that the
initiative represents an intrusion of the federal government into local
affairs. Though I'm confident that an examination of AHRI's record will
show that their concerns are entirely unfounded, I will not attempt to
dissuade my colleagues from their opinion.
These Members had the opportunity to protect their communities from
this phantom threat when the initiative was implemented, having been
given the power to veto the involvement of their districts in AHRI. I
would like to remind my colleagues that the only communities which
remain in the initiative are the ones which have actively chosen to
participate, including communities in my district, and so I resent
these actions undertaken by Members--behind closed doors--which
certainly will have a negative effect only on communities other than
their own.
I will support this bill only because so many important programs
stand to benefit from its enactment, but I regret the failure of the
conferees to abide by the will voted by this body in June. In the
future, I hope they will be more respectful of the decisions made by
communities in other Member's districts.

[[Page H9700]]

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4461,
to FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I oppose this
bill for a few different reasons, but right now I would like to talk
about just one. Interestingly, this reason has nothing to do with
farming, but rather the issue of an American citizens ability to travel
to Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, I opposed today's bill because of the agreement
regarding the sales of food and medicine to Cuba, Libya, North Korea,
Iran, and Sudan. The agreement permits the sale of food and medicine,
but also codifies the current restrictions regarding the American
citizens ability to travel to Cuba.
I oppose this agreement for three reasons. Number one is procedure.
On July 20th of this year, I offered an amendment that would have
prohibited funding for the enforcement of travel restrictions.
Essentially, lifting the travel restrictions. The amendment passed the
House by a vote of 232 to 186, but unfortunately the amendment was
stripped out of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. This agreement
would do just the opposite of what the majority of the House supported.
By codifying the present travel restrictions, it prohibits this
President or any future President from making changes to the current
travel regulations. Therefore making it more difficult for Americans to
travel to Cuba in the future.
This point is significant, Mr. Speaker, because it has not
historically been our nations policy to restrict travel. Actually, our
policy has been just the opposite. Whether it was South Africa during
apartheid, the Soviet Union under Communism or the People's Republic of
China today, our nation has consistently encouraged the notion that
person to person diplomacy was in our national interest.
Number two, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects an
American citizen's right to travel. In 1956, the Supreme Court first
affirmed this right in Kent v. Dulles. The court stated, ``An American
who has crossed the ocean is not obliged to form his opinion about our
foreign policy merely from what he is told by officials of our
government or by a few correspondents of American newspapers. Moreover,
his views domestic questions are enriched by seeing how foreigners are
trying to solve similar problems. In many different ways direct
contract with other countries contributes to sounder decisions at
home.''
In 1965, the Supreme Court heard the case of Zemel v. Rusk. The case
specifically addressed the question of travel to Cuba. In Zemel v.
Rusk, the Court again ruled that the right to travel is guaranteed in
the fifth amendment. But the Court went on to find that the restriction
on travel to Cuba was constitutional because it was supported by the
``weightiest consideration of national security.'' However, according
to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report issued on May 5, 1998,
Cuba is no longer a military threat to the United States.''
Number three, I believe we should look the issues of fairness and
severity. Let me say that I do support the idea of permitting sales of
U.S. foods and medicines to these nations. But, if you weight the pros
and cons of the sales versus travel, I don't think this agreement
passes the common sense test. Let's look at the four other nations this
agreement permits sales to, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya.
American citizens are permitted to travel to North Korea and Sudan.
North Korea is developing missiles believed to be capable of delivering
nuclear warheads. After North Korea test fired a three stage rocket in
1998, U.S. intelligence estimates reported that such a missile would
have the range to reach Alaska and Guam.
The State Department has reported that Sudan ``continued to serve as
a refuge, nexus, and training hub for a number of international
terrorist organizations.'' Additionally, the Sudanese government
continues to force its own citizens into slavery for opposing the
government's ``holy war.''
Presently, State Department regulations prohibit U.S. citizens from
traveling to Iran and Libya, but these two countries were still given
perferentional treatment compared to Cuba. Iran and Libya will be given
access to U.S. credit programs, whereas Cuba will not.
Even though the Administration proliferation reports released this
August assert that Iran is ``one of the most active countries seeking
to acquire weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional
weapons,'' assisted primarily by Russia, China, and North Korea. And
Libya was early this year accused by the United Kingdom of smuggling
Chinese Scud missile parts through Gatwick airport, and who the U.S.
Department of Defense accused of receiving missile technology training
from China.
After reviewing these facts, I have to ask does it make sense for
this Congress to support doing business with these nations at the cost
of infringing on the rights of American citizens to travel? I don't
think it does. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I will be voting against today's
bill.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4461,
the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act. I would like to thank
Chairman Skeen and the members of the Subcommittee for their leadership
in drafting this legislation and I rise in strong support of its
passage.
Included in this bill is significant funding for the boll weevil
eradication program. Boll weevil eradication has been a federally
sponsored initiative for the last twenty-five years which has
successfully eradicated the cotton pest from many states. The remaining
states with on-going eradication programs include New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee. While all these
states do receive some direct federal grants, it is nowhere near the
percentage received by those states where the eradication program has
already been completed. Instead, our states are required to call upon
cotton growers in the State to self-finance the cost of most of the
eradication program. The federal government's percentage of support for
these programs has steadily declined over the last few years and today,
the federal contribution is only a few percentage points of the cost of
the overall program. In lieu of direct federal grants, the Congress has
provided these remaining states with access to low interest USDA loans,
some grant money, and ``in-kind'' federal assistance. In most
instances, the state governments have been required to ``step up to the
plate'' and provide significant financial support to replace the lost
federal aid.
In Oklahoma, our state legislature created the Oklahoma Boll Weevil
Eradication Organization, or OBWEO, as a state agency in 1993 to
coordinate the state-wide effort. In 1995, the legislature amended the
powers of the OBWEO to enhance its financial capabilities so that OBWEO
could apply for and receive USDA low-interest loans, as well as issuing
state bonds, the interest from which would be exempt from federal
income tax. Shortly thereafter, OBWEO organized the State's growers and
began its eradication efforts.
Unfortunately, neither of the two financial tools with which OBWEO
was equipped proved to be useful. Due to quirks in USDA loan
regulations, OBWEO has never been eligible for USDA loans. Moreover,
OBWEO has not been able to issue federal tax-exempt bonds because of a
restriction in the Internal Revenue Code regarding ``private activity
bonds''. The inability of OBWEO to use the tax-exempt feature has
resulted in additional interest costs as well. All told, OBWEO has seen
its financing costs increase by almost $2 million, which is a
tremendous amount in light of a total program cost of just under $17
million. In other words, OBWEO is experiencing a more than 15% program
cost over-run because it cannot get access to loan programs available
to other states.
This bill takes the necessary steps to get the eradication program in
Oklahoma back on track with that in other states. Furthermore, it
provides the necessary resources for the cotton producers nationwide to
implement aggressive, successful eradication programs to rid their
crops of these destructive pests. Other benefits for the cotton
producers across the country include an increase in the limitation on
Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs) and Market Loan Gains (MLGs) to
$150,000 for 2000 crops of cotton, grains and oilseeds, $78 million for
the federal cost share contribution to boll weevil eradication, and
$100 million in lending authority for the eradication program.
Also included in this bill is funding for the Retired Educators for
Agricultural Programs, or REAP. REAP is an organization which was
established in 1994 to address the diminishing numbers of African
American agricultural education teachers in Oklahoma and the scarcity
of African American youth enrolled in vocational agriculture and
programs such as the Future Farmers of America. Initially, REAP was
operating in five counties in Oklahoma. It has since begun to operate
in other areas throughout the State.
The mission of REAP is to build a foundation that promotes personal
and economic opportunities in agriculture for African American youth
through project development and partnerships with educational and other
community resources. One of the primary goals of REAP is to emphasize
citizenship, economic development, leadership and scholarship to the
African American youth involved in the program.
REAP extends its outreach to the parents and community members by
means of programs, forums and opportunities to chaperone student
activities. The program encourages this participation in the hope that
the adults will become better informed, more involved and more
supportive of the reasonable and achievable aspirations of their young
people.
REAP exemplifies a model that can be easily replicated. It is a
program of vision, partnerships and commitment that is timeless in
focus and limited only by the parameters of the imagination. Field
trips to areas in my district in Southwest Oklahoma have ignited great
interest in expanding the program into this area

[[Page H9701]]

of our state. Parents and teachers in Lawton, Altus, Frederick and
Tipton, assure me that there is a great need for REAP in our area of
the State where limited financial resources have precluded service.
Mr. Speaker, REAP is an important program which could be used as a
model for similar programs in other states. This program is vital to
the further development of rural America. I am honored to have the
opportunity to play a role in furthering the efforts of this very
important program.
The bill also includes $3.5 billion for emergency assistance to
farmers and ranchers who have suffered economic losses associated with
weather-related yield and/or quality losses. This alone will not
address all the disaster assistance needs of our producers. For
instance, in Oklahoma alone, the damage from the summer drought and
wildfires is estimated at over $1 billion. However, this is a step in
the right direction to providing much-needed assistance for our farmers
and ranchers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill and ask my
colleagues to join me in supporting our nation's farmers and ranchers
by casting their vote in favor of H.R. 4461.
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that many of
the agriculture needs of the U.S. are covered in this legislation, yet
I need to express my concerns with the reimportation provision.
It is important to remember why the Prescription Drug Marketing Act
of 1988 (PDMA) was enacted in the first place. At the time, there was
considerable evidence that counterfeit and otherwise adulterated drugs
were entering U.S. commerce from abroad. After a lengthy investigation,
the Commerce Committee concluded that greater restrictions on
pharmaceutical imports into the U.S. were essential to protect the
safety of American patients and the integrity of the U.S. drug supply.
In response, a bipartisan Congress enacted PDMA.
PDMA was designed to (1) prevent the introduction of prescription
drugs that may have been improperly stored, handled, and shipped
overseas, and (2) reduce the opportunities for importation of
counterfeit and unapproved prescription drugs.
As Vice Chairman of the Commerce Oversight and Investigations (O&I)
Subcommittee, I have participated in two hearings on the importation of
counterfeit bulk drugs. Currently, even with PDMA, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), Department of Justice, and U.S. Customs Service
are having a very difficult time inspecting overseas drug manufacturing
facilities and confiscating counterfeit bulk drugs that enter the U.S.
According to a DEA agent, 25% of the drugs coming across the U.S./
Mexico border are counterfeit and a majority of the remaining 75% are
not from FDA approved sources. If those agencies are having a difficult
time with PDMA in place, I dread to see what will happen after Congress
destroys PDMA with this reimportation language.
The bottom line in this issue is consumer safety. When my
constituents in the 5th District of North Carolina go to their
neighborhood pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, they should not
have to think about the quality of the drugs they are purchasing. I did
not spend two years modernizing the Food and Drug Administration to sit
back and allow my constituents to worry about counterfeit drugs
entering the U.S.
There is also an issue of cost within this reimportation debate.
Members of Congress who support reimportation believe that this change
in law will provide Americans with cheaper pharmaceutical drugs.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that reimportation will save
Americans money.
First of all, the FDA is asking for at least $23 million to start
implementing the reimportation provision. Most likely that $23 million
will grow to $60 or $90 million very quickly. A witness from the U.S.
Customs Service testified at the most recent Commerce O&I Subcommittee
hearing that the Customs Service would also need additional money to
patrol the reimported drug shipments.
Second, there is no mandate in this legislation that wholesalers and
pharmacists have to pass the savings from reimported drugs onto U.S.
consumers. Various middlemen, both in the U.S. and abroad, will take in
the profits, while consumers will bear the risk. Today, Internet sales
remove the middlemen, but not the risk.
The Energy and Commerce Committee lead by Chairman Dingell pointed
out that reimportation may not always translate into lower priced drugs
for consumers. On July 10, 1985, Chairman Dingell said, ``To those of
you who would have us believe that prescription drug diversion is just
another way to give the consumer a price break, I say, look about you.
These are not counterfeit tee shirts or counterfeit Gucci handbags. No
consumer can possibly weigh the risk involved in the purchase of
medicine which has not been properly stored, or which has been shipped
outside channels of commerce where it is properly protected with law.''
Americans' trust of Congress will quickly erode when cost savings are
not found through reimportation and people become ill and possibly die
due to imported and reimported drugs that are counterfeit or
adulterated.
The reimportation language contained in this legislation not only
affects the quality of drugs entering the U.S. but it also poses a
large threat to international commerce. At the last minute, several
members of Congress pushed for language that interferes with contracts
between American manufacturers and foreign countries/wholesalers. That
language is unconstitutional based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation.'' There have been several court decisions
that uphold the rights of patent owners and manufacturers to decide to
whom they sell their products. The contract language contained in this
legislation clearly contradicts those court decisions.
On June 28, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4680, legislation that would
provide Medicare beneficiaries with comprehensive, high quality, and
affordable drug coverage. I am pleased to be an author of that
legislation. I agree that American consumers should have access to low
priced pharmaceuticals, but the best way to that access is through drug
coverage, not reimportation.
Dr. Jere Goyan, former FDA Commissioner under Jimmy Carter,
summarized this issue well: ``I respect the motivation of the members
of Congress who support this [reimportation] legislation. They are
reading, as am I, stories about high prescription drug prices and
people who are unable to pay for the drugs they need. But the solution
to this problem lies in better insurance coverage for people who need
prescription drugs, not in threatening the quality of medicines for all
of us.''
I am pleased that adherence to the FDA's gold standard, Section 505
of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, has been placed into the
reimportation language. Initially, some members of Congress wanted to
create a second, less-restrictive standard for pharmaceuticals entering
the U.S. By specifically mandating that all drugs imported and
reimported into the U.S. must pass Section 505 standards, Congress is
establishing an important hurdle for wholesalers and pharmacists to
overcome.
Unfortunately, I do not think that the FDA and Customs will be able
to check all of the paperwork to ensure that the drugs have been tested
and that they passed Section 505 standards. Counterfeit paperwork is
easier to produce than counterfeit drugs.

Although I have used the term ``reimportation'' throughout this
statement, please understand that Congress is not just talking about
reimporting drugs. We are also talking about importing drugs.
``Reimported drugs'' are manufactured in U.S. quality controlled
facilities, shipped for sale overseas, and imported back into the U.S.
``Imported drugs'' are made overseas in manufacturing plants that may
never be inspected by the FDA, shipped to a foreign county with pill
colors, shapes, and labeling for that country, and then imported into
the U.S. by U.S. wholesalers and pharmacists. This language will allow
imported drugs into the U.S.
I hope that both national and internatonal AIDS groups realize that
this language will stop pharmaceutical companies from selling AIDS
medications to foreign countries at greatly reduced prices because the
bill does not prevent those medications from re-entering the stream of
commerce with great financial gian to foreign countries and huge
financial losses to pharmaceutical companies.
The last section of the reimportation language is a bill by
Representative Gutknecht. The FDA reviewed this legislation and, in a
letter to Representative Dingell, expressed opposition to the vagueness
of the bill's language. Because the term ``warning notice'' is so
poorly defined, the bill will cripple the FDA's ability to contact any
importer that has suspicious drugs at a U.S. port of entry. In the
letter, the FDA reassures Congress that they could internally address
the issu eof personal use letters to seniors. There is no good reason
why Representative Gutknecht's bill is attached to this legislation.
In conclusion, I am deeply concerned about the safety and efficacy of
the drugs that will fill Americans' medicine cabinets if this
legislation passes. For decades, the U.S. has set the highest standard
in the world for quality prescription drugs. Becasue of this high
standard, the U.S. is home to the discovery and manufacturing of the
most innovative new therapies in this world. If Congress passes this
legislation, we will be destroying the safety and efficacy of drugs
consumed by our constituents. We will also be giving pharmaceutical
companies every reason to pull their headquarters and manufacturing
plants out of the U.S. and into countries with lower labor and
manufacturing costs. Why some members of Congress want to both expose
Americans to counterfeit and adulterated drugs and drive industry out
of the U.S. is truly beyond me. It is for these

[[Page H9702]]

reasons that I would vote against the Agriculture Appropriations
Conference Report.
I submit the following items to be entered into the Record.
1. Letters opposing reimportation from the Chamber of Commerce,
National Association of Manufacturers, National Mental Health
Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, ALS Association,
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Kidney Cancer Association, Log Cabin AIDS
Policy Institute, National Prostrate Cancer Coalition, Pancreatic
Cancer Action Network, Pulmonary Hypertension Association, Society for
Women's Health Research, Allergy and Asthma Network Mothers of
Asthmatics, and
2. A Sept. 20, 2000 letter from Representative Burr, Representative
Tauzin, Representative Greenwood, Representative Oxley, Representative
Pickering, and Representative Ehrlich to Members of the House and
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Majority Leader: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
world's largest business federation, representing more than
three million businesses and organizations of every size,
sector and region, strongly opposes legislation that would
require American manufacturers to sell unlimited quantities
of prescription drug products to any foreign wholesaler. I
urge your personal intervention in this very serious matter.
I urge you to reject these so-called ``non-discrimination''
provisions proposed by Congressman Henry Waxman which have
been slightly modified for inclusion in the agricultural
appropriations conference report as they would set a harmful
precedent for all U.S. businesses and industries.
These modified ``non-discrimination'' provisions would pose
a significant threat to current commerce and international
business practices by attacking manufacturers' ability to
freely contract. Furthermore, there has not been a single
hearing to study the total impact of these provisions on
business operations including the creation of jobs, as well
as the U.S. economy.
Finally, permitting the importation to the U.S. of products
sold abroad where prices are not determined by market forces
sets a terrible precedent. Again, I urge your timely
intervention and I urge you and your colleagues to reject the
drug reimportation provisions generally and the modified
Waxman proposal particularly.
Sincerely,
Tom.
____

National Association

of Manufacturers,

October 4, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write to urgently draw your attention
to a pending amendment offered by Rep. Henry Waxman to the
prescription drug reimportation language contained in the
Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4461) currently in
conference. The NAM strenuously opposes this amendment, which
should be promptly rejected.
The NAM has been greatly concerned by the drug
reimportation provisions that previously passed the House and
Senate--seeing a great threat to consumer safety. These
provisions have been improved by their emphasis on the
Senate-passed provisions and with the addition of greater
consumer safeguards. The resulting language--though still
more than the NAM can support--is a more reasonable approach
to this popular issue.
The Waxman ``non-discrimination'' amendment is wholly
inconsistent with the revised reimportation language and far
more dangerous in its own right. What precedent would
Congress set for other industries by requiring American
pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell to any foreign
wholesaler? Patient safety would be compromised by the
diminution of domestic supplies and endangered by the
prospect of sales to unscrupulous or fly-by-night foreign
wholesalers.
We are also troubled that the Waxman language would
criminalize manufacturers' failure to sell to any foreign
wholesaler. The criminal provisions in the reimportation
language are appropriately intended to deter counterfeiting
and were never intended to address the business decision of a
manufacturer determining where to sell its products.
Again, the NAM urgently requests your assistance in
defeating the Waxman amendment.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Baroody.
____

National Mental Health

Association,

Alexandria, VA, August 31, 2000.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cochran: As head of the nation's largest and
oldest advocacy organization representing millions of
individuals with mental illness across the country, I am
writing to you regarding the need to maintain meaningful
safety standards for pharmaceutical products. This past
session of Congress has witnessed unprecedented interest in
prescription medicines. I wish to express my concern
regarding a couple of the measures that have been advanced in
the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bills.
In the House, the Crowley and the Coburn amendments,
restricting funds for use in enforcement of the importation
and re-importation provisions of the Prescription Drug
Marketing Act (PDMA), section 801(d)(1), could substantially
increase risks to Americans who rely on prescription
medicines. Similarly, the Jeffords amendment, permanently
restricting the Food and Drug Administration's ability to
regulate pharmaceutical importation, could also place
American consumers at risk. While our organization is
supportive of affordable pharmaceuticals for all Americans,
we are troubled by the potential risks that come with the
assumed savings, especially since there are no guarantees
provided in these amendments that the savings would even be
passed on to the consumers.
In its statement regarding the impact of these amendments
on prescription drug safety, the Food and Drug Administration
issued this caution:
``These amendments will likely encourage the very sources
of adulterated, misbranded and unapproved drugs that were cut
off by section 801(d)(1), to begin shipping again. FDA, with
its limited resources, would be extremely hard-pressed to do
the investigative work necessary to discover and stop these
new sources of potential harmful products.''
As the Conference Committee proceeds with its final
deliberations on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, I ask
that you carefully weigh these risks that the American public
might be incurring compared to the real dollar savings that
might be realized. On behalf of our 340 affiliates
nationwide, I want to thank you for addressing the delicate
issues of prescription drug pricing and safety regulation. I
look forward to working with you in the future as Congress
continues this debate.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Faenza, M.S.S.W.,
President & CEO.
____

National Multiple

Sclerosis Society,

New York, NY, September 27, 2000.
Hon. Joe Skeen,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Skeen: I am writing to express the National
Multiple Sclerosis Society's concern about legislation that
could lead to the importation of unsafe drugs into our
country. Earlier this year the House and Senate approved
provisions that would weaken the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) ability to ensure the safety and
reliability of drugs entering the United States from foreign
countries. For instance, the FY2001 Agriculture
Appropriations bill included the Crowley and Coburn
amendments that would prohibit the FDA from spending money on
any enforcement actions, including testing for safety, that
restrict the importation of drugs approved for sale in the
United States. We believe the authors of these amendments are
genuinely committed to helping reduce the high cost of
prescription drugs. However, their approach could jeopardize
the health of countless Americans by making them rely upon
potentially mislabeled, adulterated, counterfeit, expired or
improperly stored medication to treat their conditions.
Please ensure that the final Agriculture Appropriations bill
does not include any provisions that would hamper the FDA in
its commitments to consumer safety.
Eleven former FDA commissioners have said that allowing the
importation of drugs would weaken the Prescription Drug
Marketing Act (PDMA), which for the past 12 years has helped
the FDA protect American consumers from unsafe drugs. The
Clinton Administration has called these amendments
``unacceptably flawed'' and said they would ``severely
restrict the (FDA's) authority to enforce the law that allows
only manufacturers to re-import drugs.'' When asked to
comment on the effect of these amendments, the FDA replied:
``These amendments will likely encourage the very sources
of adulterated, misbranded and unapproved drugs that were cut
off by section 801(d)(1) (of PDMA), to begin shipping again.
FDA, with its limited resources, would be extremely hard-
pressed to do the investigative work necessary to discover
and stop these new sources of potentially harmful products.''
People with multiple sclerosis, as well as people with
other chronic diseases, rely heavily upon pharmaceutical
products, including highly complex biological medications, to
fight their diseases and continue to lead active lives. These
products must be carefully monitored for safety and
consistency throughout their production, storage and delivery
to the patient to ensure safety and full efficacy.
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, established in
1946, is dedicated to ending the devastating effects of
multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is an often
progressive, degenerative disease of the central nervous
system that affects one-third of a million Americans.
Multiple sclerosis is unpredictable in its course, and can
have a devastating medical, personal and financial impact on
the people it affects. With over 600,000 members, National
Multiple Sclerosis Society is the world's largest voluntary
health agency devoted tot he concerns of those affected by
multiple sclerosis.

[[Page H9703]]

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact our Public Policy Office at (202) 408-1500.
Sincerely,
Mike Dugan,
General, USAF, Ret., President and CEO.
____

September 5, 2000.
To: Members of the House-Senate Conference Committee on the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill:
We, the undersigned patient and survivor organizations, are
writing to urge you to oppose any drug importation or
reimportation proposals, such as the Crowley Amendment and
the Coburn Amendment (in the House-passed bill) and the
Jeffords Amendment (in the Senate-passed bill).
While we appreciate the concerns of Congress to make
prescription drugs more accessible, we are deeply concerned
that overturning the Prescription Drug Marketing Act,
landmark bipartisan legislation intended to protect consumers
from counterfeit, adulterated or impotent medicines, or
lowering standards under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic
Act for imported drugs, will put all people in danger.
We believe these amendments will have a significant impact
on FDA's ability to protect the public health and are not an
appropriate or acceptable solution to prescription drug
access concerns. Access to medication which poses a risk to
the individual is worse than no access at all.
Our groups, representing millions of Americans with
diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and AIDS,
believe that full and open hearings involving all
stakeholders must be held prior to adoption of any policy
which puts the integrity of medications taken by the American
people at risk. Let us not forget that you and your families,
as well as we and ours, will all be faced with this risk. It
is not worth the price.
Respectfully submitted,
Stevan Gibson, The ALS Association; Suzanne Pattee, JD,
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; Carl F. Dixon, Kidney
Cancer Association; James Driscoll, Log Cabin AIDS
Policy Institute; Richard N. Atkins, MD, National
Prostate Cancer Coalition; Julie Fleshman, Pancreatic
Cancer Action Network; Rino Aldrighett, Pulmonary
Hypertension Association; and Phyllis Greenberger,
Society for Women's Health Research.
____

Allergy and Asthma Network,

Mothers of Asthmatics Inc.,

Fairfax, VA, September 20, 2000.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Agriculture, Rural Development and Related
Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cochran: I am writing to you to advise you of
our opposition to drug importation schemes, such as those
commonly known as ``The Coburn Amendment'' and ``The Crowley
Amendment'' (both in the U.S. House of Representatives) and
``The Jeffords Amendment'' (in the U.S. Senate).
We fear that these amendments will undermine FDA safety
protections which could greatly increase risks to American
patients who will be exposed to counterfeit, mismeasured or
adulterated pharmaceuticals.
Allergy and Asthma Network--Mothers of Asthmatics, Inc.
believe that full and open public hearings involving all the
stakeholders, must be held prior to adoption of any scheme
which puts the integrity of the U.S. pharmaceutical supply at
risk.
I respectfully request that any action on these proposals
be deferred until full and complete hearings are held.
Sincerely,
Nancy Sander,
President.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2000.
Dear Members of the House and Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittees: As Members of the House
Commerce Committee, we are writing to express our concern
over the amendments relating to pharmaceutical imports that
were attached to the Agriculture Appropriations legislation
on the House floor. While we share Congress' deep desire to
increase patients' access to reasonably priced
pharmaceuticals, we believe such a fundamental change in
current U.S. law should not be enacted without more thorough
consideration of its full potential impact on public health
and safety.
In floor debate, the Crowley and Coburn amendments were
characterized as simply providing for the personal
importation of pharmaceuticals for personal use, primarily
from Canada and Mexico. Many thought that the amendments were
identical in concept to Representative Gutknecht's
legislation that passed the House on June 29, 2000. In
reality, the statutory language of the amendments will result
in a complete reversal of current U.S. law and policy, as set
forth, in part, by the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA)
of 1987, a statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the
Commerce Committee.
It is important to remember why PDMA was enacted in the
first place. At the time, there was considerable evidence
that counterfeit and otherwise adulterated drugs were
entering U.S. commerce from abroad. After a lengthy
investigation, the Commerce Committee concluded that greater
restrictions on pharmaceutical imports into the U.S. were
essential to protect the safety of American patients and the
integrity of the U.S. drug supply. In response, a bipartisan
Congress enacted PDMA.
PDMA and related restrictions in the Food Drug & Cosmetic
Act have served their purpose well. While estimates of
counterfeit or substandard drugs approach 10 or even 20
percent abroad, the incidence in the U.S. is negligible. Any
change in current U.S. law that goes beyond a very narrowly
drawn personal use exemption will likely expose Americans to
the rates of pharmaceutical counterfeiting found abroad.
The drug importation amendments raise far more complex
issues than were properly discussed when the Crowley and
Coburn amendments were adopted on the House floor. After
closer examination of the amendments and despite our strong
desire to address the pharmaceutical access and coverage
issue, we do not believe such changes to PDMA represent sound
policy or process. Instead of taking such ill-advised
legislative action, it is our hope that we can work together
on real and workable solutions to the problem at hand without
exposing Americans to unnecessary risk.
To strengthen our argument, we have enclosed (1) a booklet
that contains letters from 11 FDA commissioners who agree
that reimportation is dangerous for U.S. patients and, (2) a
list of counterfeit pharmaceuticals recently confiscated in
the U.S. Please read these items for a better understanding
of the danger U.S. patients will face if the amendments are
included in the conference report as passed by the House.
Sincerely,
Richard Burr.
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin.
James Greenwood.
Michael Oxley.
Charles Pickering.
Robert Ehrlich.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report for H.R. 4461, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal
Year 2001. This bill provides $78.5 billion for agriculture programs,
including $3.6 billion for emergency spending to help farmers hurt by
disasters and low commodity prices. In the state of Texas, farmers have
been enduring drought conditions which make farming more difficult.
This legislation will provide the assistance that these farmers need to
continue to produce our nation's food supply.
I am also pleased that this legislation includes vital funding for
nutritional health research through the human nutrition research
service program which is part of the Agriculture Research Service at
the United States Department of Agriculture. This bill provides an
additional $750,000 to provide a total of $12.9 million for the
Children's Nutrition Research Center (CNRC) at Baylor College of
Medicine in cooperation with Texas Children's Hospital, located in
Houston, Texas. The CNRC is dedicated to defining the nutrient needs of
mothers and their children in a controlled environment.
Since its inception in November 1978, the CNRC has focused on
critical questions relating to pregnant women and their infants. More
than 8,500 volunteers have participated in studies to determine optimal
prenatal development, including which nutrients positively impact
infant health and human development. These studies have also helped to
identify the regulatory controls of body weight and body composition
during infancy and childhood. Studies have also shown how dietary
habits can contribute to long-term health and the diet-related chronic
diseases such as osteoporosis, obesity, hypertension, diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
I would like to highlight two recent discoveries made at the CNRC
that will help children live healthier, longer lives. A recent study by
Dr. Theresa Nicklas at the CNRC demonstrates that few teens have eating
habits that mirror the U.S. dietary recommendations for fat and fiber.
This study found that only one-third of the 319 teens whose diets were
analyzed had a low-fat-high fiber diet. Clearly, parents need to know
more about this study so they can provide healthier food for their
children. Another CNRC study found how much calcium is needed to help
children to grow. This calcium reference data is used by many health
care professionals to make recommendations to parents about the
appropriate calcium intake for their children. With more information,
parents will have the knowledge they need to provide a healthy diet for
their children.
With this additional funding, the CRNC can continue its vital work to
improve our children's health. I am committed to providing maximum
funding for agriculture research programs and am pleased that the
Appropriations Committee has increased funding for the human nutrition
research. Under the guidance of Baylor College of Medicine, I am
certain CNRC will continue to lead the way in the field on nutritional
research.
I also want to highlight that I am concerned about one provision in
this bill related to reimportation of Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved prescription drugs for America's consumers. This
conference report allows pharmacies and wholesalers to buy

[[Page H9704]]

American-made prescription drugs abroad and reimport them into the
United States. Since many American-made drugs are sold at lower prices
abroad, I strongly support this effort to reduce prescription drug
costs for all Americans. However, I am disappointed to learn this bill
also includes a provision that allows drug manufacturers to restrict
access to their American-made products for those wholesalers and
pharmacies which import their drugs. As a result, I am concerned that
there will be no reimportation of prescription drugs and consumers will
continue to pay high prices for the prescription drugs that they need.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that provides
funding for important agriculture programs.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member support's the conference
report for H.R. 4461, the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. In
particular, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee and the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their hard work on this
critically important bill.
This conference report contains $3.5 billion in critical emergency
disaster relief for agriculture producers. This, of course, is in
addition to the $7.1 billion in economic assistance for agriculture
producers including $5.5 billion in higher Agricultural Market
Transition Act (AMTA) payments as part of the crop insurance reform
legislation signed into law earlier this year on June 22, 2000.
The emergency funds in the conference report we are considering today
are particularly important to Nebraska farmers, because drought
conditions in the Great Plains have substantially lowered production at
a time when we have low commodity prices. Included in the $3.5 billion
funding amount is $1.6 billion for crop loss disaster assistance, $490
million for livestock assistance, $473 million for dairy assistance and
$80 million for the Emergency Conservation Program. Also, the crop loss
disaster assistance includes the following three areas: general crop
assistance, quality loss assistance, and a category for severe economic
disaster assistance. These funds should provide much needed additional
help for Nebraska producers.
This Member is pleased that the conference report for H.R. 4461
provides $462,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance
(MAFMA). The Alliance is an association of twelve leading research
universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and
facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing
technologies.
The MAFMA awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis.
These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to
provide matching funds. In the first six years of funding, MAFMA has
directed $2,142,317 toward a research competition at the 12
universities. Projects must receive matching funds. Over the first six
years, matching funds of $2,666,129 plus in-kind contributions of
$625,407 were received for MAFMA funded projects from 105 companies or
organizations. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful
the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing
and processing industries.
Mr. Speaker, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S.
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to link between
universities and industries for the development of competitive food
manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure
that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive in a
increasingly competitive global economy.
This Member is also pleased that the conference report includes
$200,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and
has assisted numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and
developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented
levels of drought in several parts of our country, this effort is
obviously important.
As the drought continues, the NDMC will play an increasingly
important role in helping people and institutions develop and implement
measures to reduce societal vulnerability to this danger. Most of the
NDMC's services are increasing world-wide demands for U.S. exports of
intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing
world-wide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide
more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities before
marketing. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide
the necessary cooperative link between universities and industries for
the development of competitive food manufacturing and processing
technologies. This will, in turn, ensure that the United States
agricultural industry remains competitive in a increasingly competitive
global economy.

This Member is also pleased that the conference report includes
$200,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and
has assisted numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and
developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented
levels of drought in several parts of our country, this effort is
obviously important.
As the drought continues, the NDMC will play an increasingly
important role in helping people and institutions develop and implement
measures to reduce societal vulnerability to this danger. Most of the
NDMC's services are directed to state, Federal, regional and tribal
governments that are involved in drought and water supply planning.
In addition, the conference report provides funds for the following
ongoing Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:

Food Processing Center..........................................$24,000
Non-food agricultural products...................................64,000
Sustainable agricultural systems.................................59,000
Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) (a joint effort with Iowa
State University and the University of Missouri)..............822,000

Also, this Member is pleased that the conference report for H.R. 4461
includes $100 million to cover any defaults for the Section 538, a
rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee program initiated by
legislation written by this Member. The program provides a Federal
guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders.
Developers will bring ten percent of the cost of the project to the
table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders
will be given a 100 percent Federal guarantee on the loans they make.
Unlike the current Section 515 Direct Loan Program, where the full
costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the
Federal Government under the Section 538 Guarantee Program will be for
administrative costs and potential defaults.
Mr. Speaker, this Member especially appreciates the Conference
Committee's support for the Department of Agriculture's 502 very
successful and rapidly expanding Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program
with a $3.7 billion loan authorization support. The program, also
initiated by legislation authored by this Member, has been very
effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved
lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to
20,000 residents in non-metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The
program provides guarantees for 30 year fixed-rate mortgages for the
purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home.

Additionally, this Member supports the provision allowing for the
reimportation of prescription drugs. I have long been a supporter of
legislation that would inject competition into the prescription drug
market and believe that this language is an important first step in
providing my constituents with the relief they seek in their
prescription drug prices. There has been massive international cost-
shifting by pharmaceutical companies onto the backs of the American
consumer. It is not reasonable that the same Federal Drug
Administration (FDA)-approved drug, produced by the same drug company,
should cost 30 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent or even 80 percent less
in foreign countries than it costs American consumers. This legislative
initiative, with consumer safety an important consideration,
undoubtedly will need refinement before the lengthy FDA regulatory
process is completed to implement these provisions, but this is an
important and necessary change.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support
the Agriculture appropriations conference report.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the progress we have made
this year in our effort to lift unilateral food and medicine sanctions.
Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Conference
Report, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, will
open up significant new export markets for American farmers. This
provision is the result of hard work by many Members and the unfailing
support of a broad coalition that refused to let this issue fade into
obscurity in the waning days of this session.
The overall purpose of this title is unmistakable--unilateral food
and medicine sanctions are eliminated and new procedures are
established for the future consideration of such sanctions. As the
author of this provision, I would like to briefly outline Congressional
intent, to ensure that agencies charged with implementing this
legislation fully appreciate the expectations of the Agriculture
Appropriations conferees.
In drafting this provision, it was not our intention to derogate from
current law or the flexibility provided for in present regulations
which do permit limited exports to some unilaterally sanctioned states.
Similarly, the intent of conferees is to expand export opportunities
for food and medicine beyond that currently provided for in law or
regulations. We expect that

[[Page H9705]]

regulations implementing this provision will liberalize the current
administrative procedures for the export of food and medicine.
A section by section explanation follows:
Section 901--Title
This section contains the title of the Act.
Section 902--Definitions
Definitions in the section are broadly drawn to allow
maximum benefit to exporters of agricultural commodities and
medicine and medical products. Non-food commodities are
included in the definition of ``agricultural commodities''
and as Section 775 further clarifies, for purposes of
administering Title IX of this Act, the term ``agricultural
commodity'' shall also include fertilizer and organic
fertilizer. ``Medical device'' and ``medicine'' should be
interpreted reasonably to mean all products commonly
understood to be within these categories, as explicitly
recognized by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and
including products such as crutches, bandages and other
medical supplies.
Section 903--Restriction
This section prohibits the President from imposing
unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions without the
concurrence of Congress in the form of a joint resolution.
The President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural and
medical sanction that is in effect as of the date of
enactment, though Section 911 provides a 120 day waiting
period to allow the implementation of appropriate
regulations.
Section 904--Exceptions
This section provides a number of exceptions to Section 903
to ensure that the Administration has sufficient flexibility
to impose or continue to impose sanctions in unusual
instances. While seven particular exceptions are provided,
they are narrowly drawn, in recognition of the conferees'
expectation that food and medicine sanctions should only be
used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, these
exceptions should not be used to impose sanctions
permanently, consistent with Section 905. Conferees expect
that the President will abide by the spirit of the language
and submit for Congressional review all sanctions to be
imposed under this section, unless extraordinary
circumstances require extremely timely action.
Section 905--Termination of Sanctions
This section provides for a sunset of any food or medicine
sanctions imposed under Section 903, not later than 2 years
after the date the sanction become effective. Sanctions may
be maintained only if the President recommends to Congress a
continuation of not more than 2 years, and a joint resolution
is enacted in support of this recommendation.
Section 906--State Sponsors of International Terrorism
This section requires licenses for the export of
agricultural commodities, medicine or medical devices to Cuba
or to the government of a country that has been determined to
be a state sponsor of international terrorism, or any other
entity in such country. These licenses shall be provided for
a period of not less than 12 months and shall be no more
restrictive than license exceptions administered by the
Department of Commerce or general licenses administered by
the Department of Treasury. While this section provides the
Administration with flexibility to determine licensing
requirements, it is the expectation of conferees that
presumption in favor of sales will fall on the side of
exporters, consistent with the title of the act, to support
enhanced exports. Consistent with this expectation, it is the
understanding of the author that the Department of Commerce
would be the lead agency for all exports and related
transactions under this title, all of which would be subject
to a general licensing arrangement. In the case of exports to
Cuba, it is the understanding of author that current
restrictions on shipping to Cuba will continue to be waived
for licensed exports. Exports to the Government of Syria and
the Government of North Korea are expected from the licensing
requirements of this section, and to the extent a private
sector emerges in either country, these entities should
receive the same treatment.
The section also requires that procedures be in place to
deny exports to any entity within such country promoting
international terrorism. This language is only intended to
give the Administration narrow discretion in the granting of
licenses for exports to specific sub-entities that are
directly involved in the promotion of terrorism.
Finally, the section requires quarterly and biennial
reports on licensing activities to determine the
effectiveness of licensing arrangements.
Section 907--Congressional Procedures
This section requires that a report submitted by the
President under Section 903 or 905 shall be submitted to the
appropriate committee or committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate. A joint resolution in support
of this report may not be reported before the eighth session
day of Congress after the introduction of the joint
resolution.
Section 908--Prohibition on United States Assistance and
Financing
Section 908(a)(1) prohibits the use of United States
government assistance and financing for exports to Cuba.
However, consistent with the overall intent of the measure,
this prohibition is not intended to modify any provision of
law relating to assistance to Cuba. The provision also
restricts the use of government assistance for commercial
exports to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan, unless the
President waives the restrictions for national security or
humanitarian reasons. In recent months, the Administration
has taken several steps to liberalize these and other
restrictions on agricultural trade with Iran, Libya, North
Korea, and Sudan. As such, it will be in the best interest of
U.S. agricultural producers and our balance of trade if the
President uses the waiver authority in subsection (a)(3) to
promptly waive these restrictions before the current
sanctions are lifted 120 days after enactment of this bill.
If the President's waiver authority is not so promptly
exercised, the restrictions in subsection (a)(1) could act to
restrict exports of agricultural commodities, medicines, and
medical devices to these countries more than under current
law. This is certainly not the intent of this legislation.
Specifically with regard to Cuba, subsection (b) of section
908 prohibits the financing of U.S. agricultural exports to
Cuba by any United States person. However, in order to
accommodate sales of agricultural commodities to Cuba,
subsection (b) specifically authorizes Cuban buyers to pay
U.S. sellers by cash in advance, or by utilizing financing
through third country financial institutions.
While they cannot extend financing to Cuban buyers, U.S.
financial institutions are specifically authorized to confirm
or advise letters of credit related to the sale that are
issued by third country financial institutions. Under this
procedure, third country financial institutions can assume
the Cuban risk associated with these transactions and issue
letters of credit free of Cuban risk to be confirmed by U.S.
banks. The provision of such a ``firewall'' against
sanctioned country risk is consistent with the role played by
third country banks in transactions with other countries
subject to U.S. sanctions.
U.S. financial institutions may act as exporters'
collection and payment agents, confirm the third country
letters of credit, and guarantee payment to the U.S.
exporter. The provision of such export-related financial
services by U.S. financial institutions (commercial banks,
cooperatives, and others) will allow U.S. farmers, their
cooperatives, and exporters to be assured that they will be
paid for exported commodities.
Subsection (b)(3) of section 908 requires the President to
issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this
section. In addition to waiving the restrictions on
assistance as appropriate under subsection (a)(3), these
regulations need to facilitate the export of agricultural
commodities, medicine, and medical devices. In particular,
the regulations need to accommodate these specifically
authorized exports by waiving the restrictions with respect
to vessels engaged in trade with Cuba found at 31 C.F.R.
515.207.
Section 909--Prohibition on Additional Imports from Cuba
Section 909 reiterates 31 C.F.R. 515.204 prohibiting from
entry into the United States any merchandise that is of Cuban
origin, has been transported through Cuba, or is derived from
any article produced in Cuba.
Section 910--Requirements Relating to Certain Travel-Related
Transactions With Cuba
This section requires the Secretary of Treasury to
promulgate regulations to authorize travel to, from, or
within Cuba for the commercial export sale of agricultural
commodities. Aside from this expansion in permissible travel
transactions, tourist activities in Cuba are not authorized.
Section 911--Effective Date
This title shall take effect on the date of enactment and
apply thereafter in any fiscal year. Unilateral agricultural
or medical sanctions in effect as of the date of enactment
shall be lifted 120 days after enactment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the FY 01 Department
of Defense bill. Passage of this legislation is vital to our military
readiness and security. I want to extend my utmost appreciation to our
Chairman for his work on this legislation and to the staff that
contributed countless hours to ensure its completion. In addition to
the crucial ongoing military operations included in this bill, there is
a provision that will significantly aid the Moab, Utah community in my
district of southeastern Utah.
We have our colleagues speak on this provision and I just want to add
my support to its inclusion. For years, the Grand County Council and
the people of Moab, Utah have been working to get the federal
government to clean up the ten and a half million ton pile of uranium
mill tailings that was the byproduct of our extensive military buildup
during the Cold War.
With the help of many of our colleagues from downstream states,
including members of this Committee such as Jim Hansen, Duncan Hunter,
and Bob Stump, we were able to include language to ensure that clean up
and removal of this pile will begin and be completed in a timely, safe
and scientific manner. This committee has done an excellent job in
addressing concerns of the many stakeholders and I know that my
constituents are anxious to see the long awaited clean up begin.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Spence for his work and I wish I had the
opportunity to personally thank Mr. Bateman. Utah shall forever

[[Page H9706]]

be indebted to the gentleman from Virginia for his commitment to help
preserve, protect and clean up one of our most beautiful areas of the
country.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss for a moment the
provisions in the Conference Report on the Agriculture Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 that deal with ``drug reimportation.''
First and foremost, I want the record to reflect that I, like my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support a comprehensive plan to
provide prescription medicines at more affordable prices to our senior
citizens under Medicare. When Medicare was first created in 1965,
prescription medicines were not a major part of our health care
delivery system. Thanks to all the incredible medical breakthroughs
over the past decades since the inception of the Medicare program, we
now have medicines that can successfully treat thousands of the most
serious illnesses and provide relief to millions of citizens suffering
from illness. It is time to modernize Medicare to reflect the fact that
prescription medicines are a major part of health care for all of our
citizens, especially older men and women.
This hastily written legislation that will open our borders to
imported drugs, however well intentioned, cannot be considered an
adequate substitute for a comprehensive prescription drug coverage for
our seniors under Medicare. These reimportation provisions are bad
public policy: potentially endangering U.S. citizens by exposing them
to ``reimported'' medicines that may be bogus or fake, outdated and
untested. Secondly, it should be clear that nothing in these provisions
change existing patent laws. In fact, the United States led the
negotiations of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPs), which gives a patent owner of a product
exclusive rights to make, use or import a patented product. No one else
can do so without permission for the term of the patent and nothing in
this bill should be construed otherwise.
Most important, I remain particularly concerned that this legislation
might very well undermine our nation's Food and Drug Administration
``gold standard'' for ensuring the quality and safety of all medicines
used by U.S. citizens and other consumers around the world.
In that respect, I am pleased by the fact that the FDA must overcome
necessary safety hurdles before this legislation is implemented. For
instance, the drug reimportation provisions of this conference report,
specifically section 745, will not go into effect until two important
actions are taken. First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
must demonstrate to the Congress that loosening current regulation of
reimportation of prescription drugs will not place American consumers
at risk. I want to emphasize that the demonstration of safety by the
Secretary should be no ``pro forma'' paper exercise, but a real
showing, with facts and figures, in the form of a report to Congress,
that the kind of importation envisioned by these provisions is safe for
consumers. If the Secretary cannot make this demonstration, these
provisions cannot be implemented. Second, the Secretary must also
demonstrate that individual consumers will realize a significant cost
reduction from this legislation, making their drug purchases
significantly more affordable for them, before it can be implemented.
Now that Congress has acted, it is up to the FDA and the next
Administration to ensure this policy can save consumers money, without
threatening the world's highest standard of safety of America's
medicines for our consumers.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those who
will be speaking about this rule and the Agriculture Appropriations
bill. But unfortunately there will be many voices that are not heard
today--the voices of the 31 million Americans who are threatened by
hunger even in the midst of our unprecedented prosperity.
I wish I did not have to bother my colleagues by talking about hunger
again. I wish that I could be here announcing that we had mustered the
political and spiritual will and finally eradicated hunger. I wish that
we could turn our collective attention to other pressing problems.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand on this floor yet again to
urge this body to do better on issues of hunger.
That said, I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Young,
Skeen, Obey, Walsh, DeLauro and Hinchey for their work in the
conference committee to make sure that the hungry were not forgotten.
Specifically, they worked to include provisions of the Hunger Relief
Act in this bill. I especially want to thank Ranking Member Kaptur and
Representative Emerson for their efforts on behalf of the hungry.
It is a triumph that food stamp recipients will now be able to own a
reliable car and pay high shelter costs. I want to particularly commend
the coalition of anti-hunger groups that came together in gathering
support for this bill--Bread For the World, RESULTS, FRAC, America's
Second Harvest, the Food Policy Working Group, the National Immigration
Law Center and the other 1,400 groups that endorsed the Hunger Relief
Act. I especially want to thank Lynette Engelhardt Stott and Barbara
Howell of Bread For the World, Ellen Teller and Ellen Vollinger of FRAC
and Derek Miller of RESULTS for their tireless efforts in bringing us
to this point.
While I am happy that these provisions are included, I am
disappointed that we did not include the other titles of the bill that
would have restored food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants and
provided additional resources for our country's food banks through the
TEFAP program. TEFAP provides the network of feeding programs around
the nation with a reliable supply of nutritious commodities. It also
directly benefits our farmers and food processors by providing them
with an additional market for their products. I am still hopeful that
those items will be included in our final omnibus bill.
This bill also provides $34.1 billion for domestic nutrition programs
including food stamps, the school lunch and breakfast programs, WIC,
Meals on Wheels and other commodity assistance programs. This is $2
billion less than the president requested and almost $1 billion less
than what we provided last year. While most of that savings is due to a
drop in food stamp participation, that does not mean that there has
been a corresponding drop in hunger and food insecurity.
Additionally, the underlying bill provides almost $1 billion in
humanitarian food aid for those in need overseas. While this equals the
request and exceeds last year's total, it is still woefully inadequate
in meeting the needs of the hungry around the world. I am proud that
the United States, through the Food for Peace Program, was able to help
avert famine in Ethiopia. I just visited the Horn of Africa last month
and was glad I did not see as many children starving as would have
without our timely assistance. I am also pleased to report that our
food aid has prevented more people from dying of famine in North Korea
and that Japan and South Korea are finally acting to assist their
neighbor in need.
As we all know, this measure also provides for the sale of food and
medicine to Cuba and other rogue nations. I am thrilled that Congress
is reaffirming the belief that food should never be used as a weapon.
President Reagan said it best, ``a hungry child knows no politics.'' We
should continue to uphold that principle and this provision moves us
closer to that goal.
The other controversial measure in this bill involves the
reimportation of prescription drugs. Many of my colleagues will address
our sides' specific concerns with this provision. But allow me to
conclude with a couple of stories that I have shared before but that
illustrate the importance of this issue and all that I have said today.
A few months ago, I met Darryl and Martha Wagner in Appalachian Ohio.
They depend on Social Security and retirement for their meager $1,000
per month. She has cancer and her treatment and medication consume much
of their income. Her doctor was concerned about whether she was getting
enough to eat. By the time a food pantry outreach worker reached them,
neither had eaten anything for three days. They had tried to do
everything by the book and they were still hungry.
Another woman from southeastern Ohio, Priscilla Stevens, has lupus
and MS and is required to take 26 medications every day. She receives
only $258 each month and relies on Medicaid for her very life. I never
got a chance to meet Tom Nelson in West Virginia. He died from a heart
attack last year. You see, he had high blood pressure and needed
medication to keep it under control. He had to choose between filling
his refrigerator and filling his prescription. Sadly, he made the wrong
choice when he decided to skip his drugs and eat instead.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to keep talking about issues of
hunger. This bill makes some strides toward fighting hunger. But we
could do so much more, especially now. I look forward to the day when
Congress makes ending hunger a top priority.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the reimportation
provisions of the FY 2001 agriculture appropriations legislation that
is before the House today. In recent weeks, these provisions have been
the subject of considerable controversy: Some Members have asserted
that allowing wholesalers to reimport FDA-approved pharmaceuticals will
essentially solve the problem of overpricing, while others say the
practice will expose U.S. consumers to unsafe products. Some argue that
the legislation is so riddled with loopholes as to be useless, while
others believe the final compromise is workable.
The bill is an attempt to address obscenely high drug prices. But it
is far too limited in its approach, because it assumes that wholesalers
reimporting prescription drugs will do so at prices that are affordable
for the 15 million seniors and disabled Americans who do not have any
form of insurance to cover the cost of their medications.

[[Page H9707]]

This is a flawed assumption. There is no guarantee that the
``middlemen'' in this bill will actually pass along substantial drug
discounts to consumers who need them. And the bill's loopholes will
allow pharmaceutical companies to keep drug prices inflated through
restrictive contracts and control of FDA-required labels.
What seniors clearly need above all else is a Medicare drug benefit.
Democrats support legislation, H.R. 4770, to guarantee comprehensive
drug coverage to any senior who wants to sign up. It guarantees that
all prescriptions written by any qualified physician can be filled at
any pharmacy of the beneficiary's choice at a price that is affordable.
We can pass such a bill this year. It is a travesty that the Republican
leadership refuses to do so.
In fact, Republicans have gone to enormous lengths to block efforts
to enact a Medicare drug benefit. Instead, they push a temporary state
program that would help only the poorest, and private ``drug-only''
plans that insurers say they will never sell to seniors.
Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry and its phony front groups are
spending millions to try to ensure that no legislation providing
affordable prescription drugs to seniors is seriously considered.
Regrettably, these efforts have served to seriously weaken the
reimportation provisions in H.R. 4461 that we are voting on today.
If all we're going to accomplish is a relaxation of reimportation
restrictions, there is still a better solution than the one before us
today. I introduced last month, the Medicare Prescription Drug Internet
Access Act of 2000 (H.R. 5142). It would allow beneficiaries to
purchase safe, FDA-approved medications from U.S. and international
suppliers at the lowest possible prices through an Internet site
administered by Medicare. This means that Medicare beneficiaries would
have guaranteed access to lower drug prices from a safe, certified-
reliable source.
Here's how it works: All a beneficiary, doctor, or a pharmacy serving
a beneficiary would need to do is click on Medicare's home page and
type in a prescription. The result would be a display of the five
lowest prices for the medicine in question and its availability from
domestic and international suppliers. Beneficiaries would choose one
and submit their prescription to the Internet pharmacy, receiving their
medicine at the price selected through the mail, by express delivery,
or at their local retail pharmacy.
The only medicine that Internet pharmacies contracting with Medicare
would be able to sell is FDA-approved medicine manufactured in FDA-
approved facilities. Internet pharmacies, under this bill, would only
be able to import prescription medicine from approved companies that
have been inspected by the FDA.
As an added precaution, Internet pharmacies would be required to
display a Medicare Seal of Approval, which serves to authenticate the
website. The seal would directly link to a secure webpage operated by
the Medicare contractor to verify the Internet pharmacy's legitimacy.
These precautions would address problems that exist today with phony
websites pawning counterfeit medicine to unsuspecting people. This bill
addresses the issue of so-called ``rogue'' websites. It establishes a
uniform set of criteria to which contracting Internet pharmacies must
adhere or face criminal and financial consequences. Among other
criteria, Internet pharmacies would have to be licensed in all 50
states as a pharmacy, fully comply with State and Federal laws, and
only dispense medicine with a valid prescription through a licensed
practitioner.
The bill I have just described will not be enacted this year. Nor is
it a full-blown solution for the problems created by eroding insurance
coverage for prescription drugs and accelerating drug price increases.
Again, revising reimportation rules is one way to make prescription
drugs more widely available at affordable prices. But today's bill
falls far short of what is necessary to attain that goal. And, it
ignores the real need of America's seniors--a Medicare drug benefit
that is available and affordable for all.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Agriculture Appropriations bill, but want to specifically address the
provisions regarding reimportation of prescription drugs, section 745
and 746. As a Member of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction
over this issue, I am glad two provisions were included to ensure the
safety of consumers, and that savings are passed along to customers.
First, we must be sure that nothing in these provisions compromises
the health or safety or the American public in any way. Section 745
requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to demonstrate in a
written report to Congress that implementation of the amendment will
pose no risk to the public, before the legislation can become
effective. This demonstration requirement is no paper tiger. We expect
the Secretary to make detailed factual findings and to submit a report
supporting the demonstration, if indeed the Secretary can make it at
all. The demonstration must be based on a detailed explanation that the
Food and Drug Administration has the resources to enforce all of the
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act against each
and every one of these drug products as they arrive at our borders. If
FDA cannot do this, the demonstration cannot be made, and these
provisions cannot be implemented.
Through the hard work of the House Commerce Committee in previous
Congresses, we have established a precedent for ensuring that Americans
have access to safe and effective prescription drugs. Any attempt to
under-mine this system by lowering these standards is not acceptable.
Second, this legislation sets a condition that before it is
implemented, the Secretary must demonstrate that it will result in a
cost reduction to American consumers. If the result of reimportation
profits only middlemen, and not individual consumers, we will have done
little to extend affordable prescriptions to our constituents.
In my view, these two determinations are bare minimum essentials that
must be in place before this legislation is implemented. We must be
vigilant in ensuring that American consumers are not threatened or put
at risk in any way by the prescription drugs that come into this
country under these provisions.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report
on the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. I would
like to commend the conferees and all the appropriators for their hard
work on this bill, and to thank them for funding several important
projects in my district.
This legislation recognizes the threat bovine tuberculosis poses to
Michigan and provides funds to begin eradicating the disease in
Michigan and throughout the country. Bovine tuberculosis is wreaking
havoc on dairy and beef cattle in my state. Already, 10 Michigan herds
have tested positive for the disease as have several deer and other
animals. To complicate matters, USDA responded by downgrading
Michigan's bovine TB status. Because of this downgrade, Michigan's
economy is expected to lose $156 million during the next ten years.
While much work remains to be done, I am encouraged by the funding
provided in this legislation to combat bovine TB in Michigan. It is my
hope that this effort will begin the process of restoring Michigan to
bovine TB-free status. I am committed to helping the farmers of my
district and I hope that this research and reimbursement funding will
bring them much-needed relief.
Secondly, I support this legislation because it provides funding for
the Forestry Incentives Program. While this earmark is small, equaling
the spending for Fiscal Year 2000, the Administration had not requested
funds in its Fiscal Year 2001 budget nor had the House appropriated
funds in its Agriculture spending bill. The Forestry Incentives Program
provides cost-share funds to private landowners for tree planting and
timber stand improvement. Through these efforts, we are able to keep
our forests healthy and sustainable.
Finally, I am pleased that the conferees retained a portion of the
important increase in funding to the USDA senior meal reimbursements
that had been added by the Stupak-Boehlert amendment to the House
Agriculture appropriations bill. Our amendment provided $160 million
for USDA's Nutrition Program for the Elderly, a $20 million increase
over the amount provided in the bill. Senior meal providers and the
countless seniors that depend on senior meals will be greatly
benefitted by the $10 million increase that the conferees retained.
This increase will halt the steady decline of the USDA meal
reimbursements that have gone down to their current rate of $.54 per
meal for fiscal year 2000, a drop of eight cents since 1993.
The increase in USDA reimbursements is essential, and will benefit
every senior meal provider in every town, city and state in the form of
more money for each meal provided. I urge the House to continue in the
future the effort to increase this crucial aid to senior meal
providers. I am also submitting for the record letters in support of
the increase in funding from the National Association of Nutrition and
Aging Services Programs, the Meals on Wheels Association of America,
and the Senior Citizens League. These organizations were invaluable in
moving this issue forward. I would also like to thank National Council
of Senior Citizens and the National Association of State Units on Aging
for their work on promoting our amendment.
I submit the following letters into the Record.

Meals On Wheels

Association of America,

Alexandria, VA, October 11, 2000.
Hon. Bart Stupak,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Stupak: On behalf of the Meals On
Wheels Association of America's (MOWAA) nearly 900 member
programs

[[Page H9708]]

nationwide and the hundreds of thousands of older Americans
whom they serve, I want to thank and commend you and
Representative Sherwood Boehlert for sponsoring an amendment
to H.R. 4461, the Department of Agriculture Appropriations
bill, to provide an additional $20 million in funding for the
Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE). We were delighted
when the House passed your amendment, and we are pleased that
the Conferees agreed to include $10 million of that increase
in the final Conference bill.
As you are aware, Congress appropriated $150 million for
the program in fiscal year 1996, but the appropriation was
reduced by $10 million to $140 million in FY 1997, and it has
remained at that level for several fiscal years. The
Conferees' actions, when approved by both chambers, will
bring funding for the program back to the FY 1996 level.
Few programs can boast the importance to the elderly, as
well as the overwhelming success, that the Elderly Nutrition
Program can. Senior nutrition programs have become the
lifeline for millions of older Americans. There are few
communities within the country where a senior nutrition
program does not exist. These meal programs are as diverse as
the communities in which they are located and the individuals
they serve. At the same time, they share a common commitment
to serving the nutritional needs of a growing number of older
Americans. They also share a common problem--extremely
limited resources. The funds and commodities furnished
through the Department of Agriculture's NPE are vital to
these programs. The $10 million increase over current levels
is critically important in enabling these programs to
continue serving the needs of our frailest and neediest
citizens.
As you are aware, USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly
funds are provided to meal programs according to a per meal
reimbursement rate. The rate has dropped over the past years
from $.6206 in FY 1993 to $.5404 in the current fiscal year.
Without a substantial increase in the appropriation level,
the rate can be expected to continue to drop.
To put the issue in perspective, let me furnish an example
from one rural meal program. A rural program that served
225,000 meals annually, and which received 20 percent of its
budget from USDA funds, lost funding for 2,000 meals as a
result of the per meal reimbursement reduction of a mere
$.0007 in one fiscal year (from $.5864 in FY 1996 to $.5857
in FY 1997). Those 2,000 meals, of course, represent critical
and life-sustaining nutrition for at-risk seniors. And the
experience of that one meal program was multiplied thousands
of times over across the nation. You can imagine the impact
that the $.0802 reduction from FY 1993 to FY 2000 has had on
meal programs--and needy, hungry seniors--throughout the
country.
Because America's elderly population continues to be
fastest growing segment of the population, demands on
nutrition programs for the elderly are increasing. The most
comprehensive national study to be conducted in recent years
found that 41 percent of home-delivered meal programs had
waiting lists. The relatively small investment of an
additional $10 million that your amendment made possible will
pay substantial dividends in helping target malnutrition and
isolation in the elderly, improving their nutritional and
health status and enabling many seniors to stay in their
homes.
The Meals On Wheels Association of America urges the full
House to approve conference bill, which will increase funding
for the USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly by $10 million
over the FY 2000 level. We thank you again on behalf of all
our member programs and the many needy seniors for whom this
increase will mean a hot, nutritious meal, perhaps the only
food of the day.
Sincerely,
Margot L. Clark,
President.
____

Senior Citizens League,

Alexandria, VA, October 11, 2000.
Hon. Bart Stupak,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Stupak: On behalf of the 1.5 million
members and supporters of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL),
many whom are dependent on various senior meal programs for
their livelihood, are grateful to you and Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert for your efforts to increase the per-meal
reimbursement rate. This action was absolutely necessary to
insure the continued availability of nutritional and health
programs for older Americans who desperately need them for
survival.
Your actions have sent a strong message to America's
elderly that Congress recognizes and reacts to their needs.
TSCL doubts that without your persistence on the topic, the
situation being faced by senior meal providers would have
been recognized, much less acted upon. Many thanks from TSCL
and, in particular, the 4,690 TSCL members who reside in
Michigan's 1st Congressional District, for your personal
efforts and the contributions of your outstanding staff.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Ouellette,
Director of Legislative Affairs.
____

National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services
programs,
Washington, DC, October 11, 2000.
Hon. Bart Stupak,
House of Representatives, RHOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Stupak: The National Association of
Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP), representing
the interests of congregate and home delivered meal programs
for the elderly in your state and across the nation, supports
the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4461.
We wish, in particular, to commend the Conference Committee
for maintaining the provision to increase funding for the
USDA's Elderly Feeding Program (NPE) by $10 million. By
increasing the funding for the program, you prevent
disruption to meal programs that prove so vital to seniors
and provide a little stability on the local level, which is
important to the meal providers.
NANASP also commends you, Congressman Stupak, for taking
leadership on this issue. We would have preferred the $20
million increase offered by your amendment and hope we can
work with you next year to revisit this matter. We know that
you recognize this as a strong investment in maintaining the
good health of this nation's seniors. Nutrition is a
preventive service that keeps seniors in their homes and
communities rather than facing more costly
institutionalization.
We thank you and Conference Committee for recognizing the
value and effectiveness of this program and hope it will be
provided this modest increase for FY 2001.
Sincerely,
Jan Bonine,
President.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference
agreement and its Continued Dumping Offset provision. The language in
the amendment is the same as that in H.R. 842, a bill introduced by my
distinguished colleague from Ohio, Mr. Regula, and to which I and 63
other members of the House are currently cosponsors.
The rationale behind the amendment is simple: Where internationally
recognized unfair trade practices cause harm to our producers and
workers, effective relief is promised. The amendment included in the
conference package would reduce the adverse effect of continued dumping
or subsidization by distributing the monies finally assessed to the
injured industry. It is hoped that the knowledge that continued unfair
trade practices will result in monies going to the injured and
encourage those engaging in the continued unfair trade practices to
trade fairly.
In my district and my state, I have witnessed first-hand what can
happen to companies and jobs when unfair trade practices distort the
market conditions. In one important industry, bearings, continued
dumping has gone on uninterrupted for more than a decade. Companies who
operate under constant conditions of depressed prices are not able to
maintain investments, employment levels or compensation levels even if
they are highly competitive at the beginning of the process. Similar
experiences exist for many other industries where continued dumping or
subsidization has gone on.
I urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues to support this
conference agreement and the Continued Dumping Offset provision.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 340,
nays 75, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 525]

YEAS--340

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman

[[Page H9709]]

Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--75

Ackerman
Andrews
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boehner
Carson
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clyburn
Coburn
Conyers
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeMint
Dingell
Doggett
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Gejdenson
Goss
Hefley
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lantos
Largent
Lee
Lofgren
Markey
McCrery
McDermott
McKinney
Metcalf
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Stark
Sununu
Tancredo
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Upton
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

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

{time} 1752

Messrs. McDERMOTT, RANGEL, OLVER, CROWLEY and TIERNEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________