[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 128 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10518-S10526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
  RELATED AGENCY PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
4461, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     4461, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related 
     agency programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that 
     the House recede from its disagreement of the Senate 
     amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, signed by a 
     majority of the conferees on the part of the House.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the Record of Friday, October 6, 
2000.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my prepared 
remarks describing the provisions of this conference report be printed 
at this point in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce to the 
Senate that we successfully completed action in our conference 
committee and brought back to the Senate a bill that has already been 
approved by the other body by a substantial vote of support, and 
indications are that the President is prepared to sign this conference 
report.
  I am pleased to make that announcement because during the development 
of this legislation and the markup sessions that we held here in the 
Senate, and discussions of the bill on the floor of the Senate, there 
were some very contentious and controversial issues that were debated 
and considered. We didn't achieve all of the successes that Senators 
wanted to achieve, as is usually the case in the situation where you 
are negotiating compromise with the other body and dealing with views 
and opinions reflected in the policies of the administration. But, 
taken together, given the expressions of support and interest in the 
Senate for the provisions that are in the bill, I am confident that 
most Senators will be very pleased with this result.
  This is a good bill. It deserves the support of the Senate.
  It provides a restrained approach to funding the activities of the 
Agencies and Departments of Government that are funded in this bill.
  The total dollar amount for new budget authority, for example, is 
less than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. It is less than the level 
requested by the President. It is less than the House-passed bill 
level, and it is less than the Senate-passed bill level.
  The fact is, every effort was made during consideration of this bill 
to be restrained and responsible in the allocation of funds that are 
available to this subcommittee under the budget resolution.
  The conference agreement provides total new budget authority of $74.5 
billion for programs and activities of the United States Department of 
Agriculture (except for the Forest Service which is funded by the 
Interior Appropriations bill), the Food and Drug Administration, and 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is approximately $1.1 
billion less than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $2.3 billion 
less than the level requested by the President. It is $651 million less 
than the House-passed bill level, and $859 million less than the 
Senate-passed bill level.
  This conference report also includes an additional $3.6 billion in 
emergency appropriations to compensate agricultural producers for 
losses suffered due to drought, fires, and other natural disasters; to 
meet conservation needs; and to provide relief to rural communities.
  Including Congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total non-
emergency discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001 of just over $15 
billion in budget authority and outlays.
  I am pleased to report that this conference report provides funding 
at the President's request level, an increase of nearly $58 million 
from the fiscal year 2000 level, for activities and programs in this 
bill which are part of the Administration's ``Food Safety Initiative.''
  The conference report provides adequate funding in our view for the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, which has the responsibility of 
conducting inspections and monitoring the safety of our Nation's food 
supply to ensure that the food that is consumed by Americans and 
produced and processed here is fit for human consumption, and free from 
contamination.
  This is a big challenge. It is a big worry all over the country 
because there have been instances where there have been problems in 
this area. We think this conference report responds to those concerns 
and that will have a very positive influence in helping to solve 
problems in this area of food safety.
  Let me also point out the emphasis in this conference report on 
agricultural research and education programs. We have to maintain a 
high level of technological sophistication in order to continue to 
produce an adequate amount of food and fiber for our country at 
reasonable prices, and to do so in a way that permits a level of profit 
for those engaged in farming operations to stay in business. It is very 
difficult in many areas of the country now for farmers and ranchers to 
make ends meet. They are confronted with a wide range of difficulties.
  We have to invest in research to try to find new ways of improving 
yields for the crops that are produced in our country, and to do so in 
a way that is not threatening to the environment or to the citizens of 
our country. We have a heightened awareness of problems that can occur 
in this area.
  There is almost a near hysteria in Europe over this issue. We are 
confronting difficulties in trade because we are having problems 
getting licenses for commodities and foods that are produced in the 
United States because they have genetically modified organisms--GMOs--
which is a big issue in the U.K. particularly. The tabloids have been 
fanning the flames of the hysteria that has taken hold there. The 
European Union has been very hesitant and difficult to deal with in 
approving licenses from exporters who would like to sell what they are 
producing in the European market. In my view, many of these practices 
are unfair and not based on sound science.
  But we need to have a regiment of research and development that is 
beyond question in terms of its impact on human health and our 
environment. That is why it is as important this year, more important 
than ever before, to have a robust research and education program that 
is supported by the Department of Agriculture. In colleges and 
universities and in Agricultural Research Service laboratories all 
around the country, there are funds that will be made available to help 
achieve the goals in this area.
  This conference agreement provides increased appropriations for 
agriculture research and education programs. Total appropriations of 
nearly $2 billion are provided for the Agriculture Research Service and 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, $126 
million more than the fiscal year 2000 level and $62 million more than 
the Senate-passed bill level. In addition, as requested by the 
President and provided in the Senate bill, $120 million in fiscal year 
2000 funding will be available in fiscal year 2001 to fund the 
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
  Approximately $34 billion, close to 46 percent of the total new 
budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic 
food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These 
include food stamps; commodity assistance; the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the school 
lunch and breakfast programs; and the school breakfast pilot program, 
which is funded at $6 million. Included in this amount is the Senate-

[[Page S10519]]

passed bill level of $4.052 billion for the WIC program, including $20 
million for the WIC farmers' market nutrition program.
  The WIC program is a very important nutrition program and health 
program for women, infants, and children. Everybody is aware of the 
importance of school lunch and breakfast programs to help equip our 
children with the nutrition they need as they are at school so they can 
learn and do a good job at school.
  We also have a Food Stamp Program that is funded in this bill. In my 
view, these are funded at adequate levels to meet the demands and needs 
we have in our country. We have been very fortunate in this time of 
economic expansion and growth for jobs to be created so those who want 
to work can find work. We have people coming into the country now under 
special visa requirements because we have an inadequate labor supply, 
or at least an inadequately trained supply of labor to do many of the 
jobs that have to be done in this country. Many entry level positions 
are now being filled by those who are newly coming into the country, 
many just for the purpose of working on farms because people who live 
here and who have been here for a while either don't want to do the 
work or for some reason are unavailable to those who need help on their 
farms.

  This is a challenge. The point I am making in connection with the 
food and nutrition programs is we have been able to reduce the costs of 
some of these programs, particularly the Food Stamp Program, because of 
the expansion in the economy and the availability of jobs. We need to 
make sure through our budget policies that we continue to have an 
environment economically for job growth and expansion.
  For farm assistance programs, the conference report provides $1.3 
billion in appropriations. Included in this amount is the full increase 
of $89 million above the fiscal year 2000 level requested by the 
Administration for Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses, as well 
as appropriations which, together with available carryover balances, 
will fund the fiscal year 2001 farm operating and farm ownership loan 
levels included in the President's budget request.
  Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service total $873 million, $69 million more 
than the fiscal year 2000 level, and approximately $6 million more than 
the level recommended by the Senate.
  Conservation programs, in my view, are some of the less well 
advertised programs of the Department of Agriculture. We have increased 
the amount of acreage available for the Wetlands Reserve Program by 
100,000 acres.
  We have also worked hard on these programs to ensure they help 
improve wildlife habitat on farms and on the lands that are owned by 
American citizens. We have incentive programs, not just mandatory 
programs, but programs that encourage the management of land so that 
conservation is enhanced, and the protection of soil and water 
resources is enhanced by the way landowners use and care for their 
lands.
  We found that to be a very popular way of helping to encourage and 
obtain the best possible land management practices, rather than having 
a Federal Government come in with threats and other sanctions that can 
be imposed on landowners. It is better to do it in a way that is 
educational and nonthreatening and based on incentives rather than 
sanctions, fines, and penalties from the Federal Government.
  We also see in this bill something that is important to every rural 
community: development programs, housing programs, water and sewer 
system programs. They are all important in rural America. Many of these 
communities have some of the lowest income families in America and 
therefore they don't have the economic base to pay the costs that would 
be required for utilities and other lifestyle enhancements that are 
available in the larger towns or the cities of our country. These 
programs are very important in States, such as mine and others, which 
have to depend upon Federal assistance to make sure they have safe 
drinking water, they have sewer systems, they have electric lights, 
they have telephone service access. These programs are funded in this 
bill this year.
  For rural economic and community development programs, the conference 
report provides appropriations of $2.5 billion to support a total loan 
level of $8.8 billion. Included in this amount is $763 million for the 
Rural Community Advancement Program, $680 million for the rental 
assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of 
$5.1 billion.

  A total of $1.1 billion is provided for foreign assistance and 
related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $115 
million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service 
and total appropriations of $973 million for the P.L. 480 Food for 
Peace Program, $31 million above the fiscal year 2000 level, and the 
same as the President's request and Senate bill levels.
  Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is 
$1.1 billion, $74 million more than the fiscal year 2000 level and $24 
million more than the Senate-passed bill level. The conference report 
also makes available an additional $149 million in Prescription Drug 
User Fee Act collections. The increase in new budget authority, 
together with the redirection of base funds, provides FDA with an 
additional $130 million from the fiscal year 2000 level for funding 
requirements identified in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget 
request. These include the full increases requested in the budget of 
$30 million for food safety, $20 million for construction of the Los 
Angeles laboratory, and $22.9 million for premarket review. Also 
included is a portion of the increased funding requested for FDA to 
enforce Internet drug sales, enhance inspections, improve existing 
adverse events reporting systems, and continue counter-bioterrorism 
activities.
  In addition, the conference report appropriates, contingent on a 
budget request, the $23 million FDA has identified it needs for fiscal 
year 2001 to carry out the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. 
The FDA said it needed this amount for this next fiscal year to carry 
out the provisions of this conference report that provides these new 
responsibilities, to guarantee safety and efficacy of drugs in this new 
era, so that is included in this report.
  For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $68 million is 
provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration.
  As my colleagues recall, as passed by the Senate, this bill included 
not only the regular fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, but a 
``Division B'' providing supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and 
other emergency provisions relating not only to programs and activities 
under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction but to various other Departments 
and agencies of government. Provisions outside this Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction have been deleted by the conference committee and will be 
addressed, as appropriate, on other bills.
  Funding for emergency assistance for farmers and landowners who have 
been affected by drought, fires, and other natural disasters that have 
occurred this year is now included as Title VIII of this conference 
report. The total assistance package has been scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office at $3.6 billion.
  The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use such sums as 
necessary of the Commodity Credit Corporation to compensate farmers for 
crop and quality losses at the same rates as have been used in previous 
years. However, unlike years past, there is no limit on the amount of 
funds available for this assistance, thus eliminating proration of 
producers' payments and hopefully expediting payments.
  Other assistance provided by the bill includes $490 million for the 
livestock assistance program, $473 million for dairy producers, and 
$328 million for producers of certain specialty crops.
  The agreement provides needed conservation funding by making $35 
million in technical assistance available for the Conservation Reserve 
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, and providing an additional 
$110 million for the Emergency Watershed Program of the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service.
  Senators worked very hard in the conference on this issue, and other

[[Page S10520]]

issues as well. We have expanded the opportunities to sell what we 
produce in the international marketplace in this conference report as a 
result of changes in sanctions policy. There have been many initiatives 
introduced on this subject. I know the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, 
has a wide, sweeping, and very thoughtful approach to this sanctions 
issue reflected in a bill he has introduced. I hope we can pass 
legislation in this area that sets new policies and establishes a new 
way of going about deciding when and where to impose sanctions that tie 
the hands of our exporters and have an adverse impact on our ability to 
sell what we produce on the international marketplace.

  I am not saying sanctions are bad. We have to use them in certain 
cases. They have proven to be very effective in certain cases. 
Normally, this is when we have the cooperation of other countries. But 
when we just unilaterally impose sanctions, in many cases that ends up 
being more hurtful and harmful to our farmers and ranchers and 
businesses than to anybody else. We have to be careful how we approach 
this whole issue.
  I think the conference committee exercised good judgment and an 
awareness of concerns throughout our country on this issue when it made 
the changes that are reflected here. I am hopeful with the emergency 
assistance provisions that are in the bill, the other programs that 
have been funded, the Senate will be able to enthusiastically support 
and approve the work that this conference committee has done.
  This conference report carries a number of other legislative 
provisions adopted by the conference committee, including the Continued 
Dumping and Sudsidy Offset Act; the Conservation of Farmable Wetland 
Act; and the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act.
  Mr. President, we are already well beyond the October 1 start of the 
new fiscal year. This conference agreement is the product of two 
lengthy sessions of the conference committee. The conference report was 
filed last Friday night, October 6, and was adopted by the House of 
Representatives on October 11 by a vote of 340 to 75. Senate passage of 
this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this 
fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill to the President for signature 
into law.
  Senator Kohl is the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. It has been 
a pleasure to work with him throughout the hearing phase of the 
development of our factual basis for writing this bill. In all the 
discussions we have had in working on challenges before the 
subcommittee, I could not have asked for more cooperation or careful 
and thoughtful assistance than Senator Kohl provided to me and to the 
committee as a whole.
  The full committee, of course, had a role to play in this, all 
members of our subcommittee and full committee, too. I want to express 
my appreciation to all of them. It was a pleasure working in conference 
with Chairman Joe Skeen, from New Mexico, who is serving in his last 
year as chairman of the subcommittee. This is his sixth year in that 
capacity. The House has term limits on subcommittee chairmen. It 
effectively prohibits his service beyond this year as chairman of the 
subcommittee. But he has really been a hard-working leader in the House 
on the development of this legislation and this appropriations bill. We 
will miss working with him as chairman. We hope to be able to continue 
working with him closely in the years ahead, though, as a fellow member 
of the Appropriations Committee in the House.
  Marcy Kaptur, from Ohio, is the distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
House committee. It is always a pleasure working with her. She was very 
helpful in the development of this bill during our consideration of it 
in conference with the House.
  I know none of this excellent work product would have been possible 
without the outstanding assistance and hard work that has been turned 
in by our able staff members: Rebecca Davies, who is the chief clerk on 
this committee, Hunt Shipman, Martha Scott Poindexter, Les Spivey, and 
with the wise counsel and influence of my chief of staff, Mark Keenum, 
and with others who participated in the development of this bill. I say 
thank you. It would not have been possible without their help. This is 
an outstanding work product. We appreciate your excellent effort. I do 
not want to leave out Galen Fountain either. He is the chief clerk on 
the Democratic side of our subcommittee. He has been a very helpful 
person to work with, and we appreciate very much his outstanding 
assistance, too.

  I know of no Senators who have asked to be recognized at this point, 
but I repeat what the majority leader provided by way of information to 
the Senate in the opening announcements this morning. We have time 
reserved today, we have time reserved on Tuesday, and a short period of 
time on Wednesday for discussion of this bill, and then a vote will 
occur at 11:30 on Wednesday morning. I hope Senators will take 
advantage of these opportunities if they have questions or if they have 
statements they want to make in connection with the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to commend the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi for his leadership in producing 
a very sound Agriculture Appropriations bill. I have served with the 
Senator from Mississippi on that subcommittee for almost 20 years now 
and have participated in the conference just concluded which has 
produced this bill. I can personally attest to the professionalism, 
courtesy, and, perhaps most of all, the patience displayed by the 
Senator from Mississippi in presiding over those proceedings.
  The public has little opportunity to know what goes on in the 
legislative process generally, but they do hear about the introduction 
of bills and they do see, on C-SPAN and otherwise, the committee 
meetings and the questioning of witnesses, and to some extent they see 
on C-SPAN II, to the extent anybody watches, what happens on the Senate 
floor. But the conferences are largely unseen by the public. That is 
crunch time, when the work is concluded. Everything else which is done 
is really of much less significance than the conferences, where the 
final touches are put on legislation which constitutes the laws of the 
country.
  There are very long sessions. A week ago last night was illustrative 
of the point. The speeches tend to go very long. The presiding chairman 
has to have great patience, to have the proper balance between allowing 
every member to speak and getting the work completed. That conference 
had some very difficult issues, issues which related to relieving 
sanctions on Cuba, to allow more importations of food, and it went into 
an issue which is highly sensitive, where there really ought to be an 
evaluation as to our relations with Cuba. We did take a step in the 
right direction on releasing the sanctions as to food--really, largely 
as an economic matter for America's farmers.
  In the foreign operations bill there is a provision, which this 
Senator introduced, to try to get more cooperation on drug 
interdiction, which the Cuban Government is willing to do. Then we had 
important provisions on reimportation of drugs, on which the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, who is now presiding, 
was the leader.
  It has come to pass that the appropriations bills, now, are the 
principal legislative vehicles, so to speak, for getting substantive 
legislation because it is only the appropriations bills, ultimately, 
which pass. So much of that is done in conference as opposed to 
amendments on the floor, which is the prescribed way.
  The senior Senator from Mississippi presided at that conference, and 
we produced a very important bill. As I have heard him report on it 
today, I am struck by its promise and its importance for the American 
people under his leadership.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S10521]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I first express my appreciation to the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for his generous 
comments about my efforts in behalf of this legislation as chairman of 
the subcommittee. He also put in a lot of time and effort during the 
conference with the House and also during the development of this 
legislation in our subcommittee. He has been an outstanding member of 
the Appropriations Committee and, of course, chairs the Labor-HHS 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate and does an 
excellent job in that capacity. I thank him for his very generous 
statements.
  I also commend, as he did, the Senator from Vermont, who is chairing 
the Senate this morning, for his leadership on the drug importation 
issue. I don't think this would have been included in this 
legislation--I know it would not--were it not for the leadership of 
Senator Jeffords. It was this amendment that was included in the bill 
when the bill was on the floor of the Senate.
  As the occupant of the chair remembers, we had a very heated debate. 
It was contentious. It was a matter of a lot of controversy surrounding 
it. I offered an amendment to the Jeffords amendment, which was adopted 
as it turned out, helping protect the safety and efficacy of drugs that 
would be imported under the provision of the Jeffords amendment. Then 
in conference with the House, everybody got involved, not just the 
conferees but the leadership of the House and the leadership of the 
Senate. Everybody, it seemed, had an opinion or a viewpoint on how that 
language should be changed or modified or improved.
  As it turned out, the end result is something in which the Senator 
from Vermont can take a great deal of pride. His influence will always 
be remembered on this issue. I thank him for his courtesies during the 
handling of the issue and his good advice and counsel all along the 
way.
  Mr. President, the crop disaster provisions in this bill take a 
somewhat different approach to compensating producers who may have 
suffered significant quality losses during 2000 caused by bad weather, 
insects, or other natural occurrences. The bill authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to compensate producers for quantity, quality, 
and severe economic losses. Loss thresholds for quantity and quality 
losses are separated in this bill, whereas they have been combined in 
previous disaster bills. Different crops have different values 
associated with declines in quality. The report language accompanying 
the conference report takes care to discuss special rules that should 
be considered for cotton, for example.
  The conferees were concerned that this new calculation might have 
some unintended consequences and provided the Secretary of Agriculture 
with additional flexibility in devising an appropriate loss 
compensation program. Because there are crops, like cotton, that rarely 
have quality losses that are not accompanied by quantity losses, this 
bifurcated approach could have unintended detrimental consequences. The 
Secretary could use his authority to compensate for severe economic 
losses and calculate losses for cotton and other similar commodities in 
the manner done in 1999, when quality and quantity losses were combined 
to determine whether a producer had met the loss thresholds.
  The Secretary could also use the authority provided him to provide 
assistance for severe economic losses to provide appropriate 
compensation to producers that incur the necessary expense to bring 
their 2000 crop all the way to harvest.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Montana is on the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, when we finally vote on the Agriculture 
appropriations conference report, I intend to vote for it essentially 
because the bill provides so much that helps so many people, many of 
whom are in dire straits. I am referring specifically to a lot of the 
people living and working in farm communities in my State of Montana 
and throughout the Nation.
  I am especially pleased the bill provides $3.6 billion for weather-
related disasters. The droughts and fires in my State, as well as other 
parts of the Nation, have been quite severe and, in many areas, 
devastating. This bill will help our citizens get through the most 
difficult times. I commend the Senator from Mississippi and others who 
have worked to help pass this bill.
  I want to mention a couple of points of this bill which I think are 
erroneous. I object strenuously to the provisions in the bill with 
respect to restrictions on food and medicine sales to Cuba and 
restrictions on the right of American citizens to travel to Cuba.
  Last July, I flew to Havana, along with my colleagues, Senator 
Roberts and Senator Akaka. It was a brief trip, but I returned from 
Havana more convinced than ever that it was time to end our outdated 
cold war policy toward Cuba. For example, I believe we should have 
normal trade relations with Cuba. We do not. The President just a day 
ago signed permanent normal trade relations with China, a Communist 
country which certainly presents more of a national security threat to 
the United States than Cuba, but yet we do not have normal trade 
relations with Cuba. It makes no sense.
  As a consequence, we Americans, the Congress, and the Federal 
Government, prevent our farmers and ranchers from exporting their 
products to Cuba. But our Japanese, European, and Canadian competitors 
have no constraints. They fill the gap. The result, obviously, is it 
helps those countries, it helps the Cubans, but it hurts Americans. 
Also, our policy has no impact on those Cuban policies that we would 
like to see changed--none whatsoever.
  Most Members in the Senate and House have also recognized the 
absurdity of this policy. Earlier this year, the Senate and the House 
agreed to end the ban on food and medicine sales to Cuba. We had 
overwhelming majorities in the Senate and the House. Those votes 
expressed the will of the Congress. The votes clearly reflected the 
will of the American people.
  Yet the Republican conferees simply overturned those House and Senate 
votes. The Republican conferees thwarted the will of the American 
people. The result is that there will be restrictions on the sale of 
food and medicine to Cuba. These restrictions guarantee that there will 
be few such sales, and those few that do occur will be done only by 
major companies, shutting out the small farmer. That is not the way law 
is supposed to be made in a democracy.
  To rub salt in the wounds, the Republican conferees agreed to codify 
in law the current administrative restrictions on travel to Cuba. That 
action removed the flexibility of this President and future Presidents 
to liberalize or not to liberalize, depending upon what seems to make 
the most sense. The result is a further infringement on the right of 
Americans to travel freely. It also diminishes the right of 
Cuban Americans to visit family members in Cuba.

  An overwhelming majority of the Congress recognizes we must end the 
anachronistic cold war policy toward Cuba. That policy harms the 
average Cuban. Clearly, it harms the average American. The current 
policy against Castro is a foil. It helps prop him up. Were we to lift 
the bans that would take away that foil, it would make it more 
difficult for him to stay in power. It is amazing how foolhardy our 
policy is. It is also a policy that hurts the American public. It is a 
great danger.
  Once the resistance of the Castro regime begins--think of that for a 
minute. We have to think very carefully about how to help manage the 
transition that occurs in Cuba from the current-Castro regime to the 
post-Castro regime. Of course, the Cubans must make that decision. The 
nature of that transition has a very direct bearing upon this country. 
We have to be very careful.
  Clearly, if we were to open up now, we could help influence a 
transition that is more in America's national interest. Current policy 
also clearly abridges the freedoms of Americans to travel. If we had to 
vote separately on these Cuban provisions, I would work hard to defeat 
them, but the other provisions in the bill are so overwhelming 
important for the health and prosperity of Americans that I will vote 
in favor of the Agriculture appropriations bill. But I repeat, the Cuba 
provisions are a serious step backward.

[[Page S10522]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now considering the Agriculture 
appropriations conference report. It is critically important to a 
number of our States. It certainly is critically important to mine.
  We are faced with one of the toughest downturns in the agricultural 
markets in the history of our country. We currently have the lowest 
real prices for farm commodities in 50 years, and we are in a very 
serious situation as a result. Literally, thousands of farm families 
will be forced off the land if there is not an adequate Federal 
response to this crisis.
  A number of years ago we passed a new farm bill. That farm bill is 
not working. I think the proof is abundantly clear. The fact is, we 
have had to write disaster bills every year for the last 3 years to try 
to deal with this collapse in farm prices.
  The situation now is even more grave as we have dealt not only with 
collapsed prices but also with what I call the triple whammy of bad 
prices, bad policy, and bad weather.
  In my State, as in many others, farmers have not only had to cope 
with very low prices but, in addition to that, weather conditions that 
have dramatically reduced the value of the crop even from these very 
low prices.
  I just had a farmer stop me when I was home and tell me he was 
offered 75 cents a bushel for his grain--75 cents a bushel.
  A lot of people wonder, what is a bushel? We talk about these things 
in farm terms. I think many people in the country have no idea what a 
bushel represents. A bushel is almost 60 pounds. Can you imagine 
getting 75 cents for that product? That is ruinous. That is 
confiscatory. And it will drive thousands of farm families into 
bankruptcy if there is not a response.
  Thankfully, each of the last 3 years, there has been a Federal 
response. Three years ago, I am proud to say, the first amendment was 
mine, offered with Senator Dorgan, to begin to respond to this crisis 
of collapsed prices. That developed into a $6 billion assistance 
package.

  Last year, we had another package. Senator Grassley of Iowa and I 
offered the only bipartisan package of assistance, and it formed the 
basis for what was agreed to, an $8.7 billion package. This year, for 
the third year in a row, we have already passed, and the President has 
signed into law, a package of $7.2 billion of assistance, again to 
offset these collapsed prices. But since that package was passed and 
signed into law, we also have these weather disasters across the 
country. In my State, overly wet conditions have led to an outbreak of 
a disease called scab that has dramatically lowered the value of the 
crop. In other parts of the country, there has been devastating 
drought, a situation where farmers have not received any rain 
throughout the growing season. As a result, they have almost total 
losses.
  In this bill we will vote on next week, there is an additional $3.5 
billion of assistance, including provisions to address the quality loss 
affecting my State's farmers; $500 million to address the quality loss 
circumstance in which farmers go to the elevator and in some cases the 
people at the elevator say, we won't buy your grain at any price 
because it is so loaded with this fungus called scab. That is the 
nature of the crisis.
  It is so important that next week we pass that bill. It is so 
important that this aid start to flow. It is so important that we say 
to farm families across America, we are not going to let you fail 
because of a failed farm policy written in Washington. We are not going 
to let you face a circumstance just because our major competitors, the 
Europeans, are outspending us 10 to 1 in their support for their 
producers, that we let our people fall by the wayside. We are not going 
to say to our producers, just because the Europeans account for 84 
percent of all the world's agriculture export subsidy--we only account 
for 1.4 percent--just because they are outgunning us 60 to 1 on that 
measure of support, we are not going to let you go under because of a 
failed policy out of Washington.
  These are critical times. Our major competitors, the Europeans, have 
done everything they can to support their producers. I am not being 
critical. I admire them. They have stood up for their people. They 
understand that if you just abandon them to this world market, where we 
see catastrophic prices, what that will mean is an exodus from the 
rural parts of Europe, just as we are seeing that kind of circumstance 
in America. We are seeing thousands of farm families leave the land 
because the economics just don't work.
  We obviously need this rescue package. We need this assistance. More 
than that, we need a new farm policy, one for the longer term, one that 
recognizes what is happening in world agriculture, one that understands 
the Europeans are supporting their producers at a rate of $300 an acre 
on average while we support our producers at a rate of $30 an acre on 
average. It is no wonder that Europe is moving up in world market share 
and we are moving down because our friends in Europe are doing it the 
old-fashioned way--they are going out and buying markets that have 
traditionally been ours. They have a strategy; they have a plan. Their 
plan is to dominate world agricultural trade. They are putting the 
money up to do it.
  The harsh reality is that USDA now tells us for the first time in as 
long as anyone can remember, Europe is poised to surpass us in world 
market share. Let me repeat that: This year USDA tells us for the first 
time in memory Europe is poised to pass us in world market share for 
agricultural products. That ought to be a warning to all of us of what 
is happening. It is happening because the Europeans have spent tens of 
billions of dollars a year, nearly $50 billion a year, supporting their 
producers, paying for export subsidies so they can buy markets that 
have traditionally been ours. Shame on us if we allow them to take us 
out of world markets that have been ours for decades. That would be a 
serious mistake.

  When I ask the Europeans, how is it you are able to convince your 
people to step up and support your producers in the way that you do, 
they say, it is very simple: we have been hungry twice in Europe. We 
never intend to be hungry again. We are not going to rely on outside 
food sources to feed our people. We just are not going to do it.
  I hope next year we will begin the debate on a new farm policy, and 
we will recognize that unilateral disarmament does not work. It doesn't 
work in military affairs; it doesn't work in an agricultural trade 
confrontation. It hasn't worked with this new Federal farm policy. It 
has been a disaster. I don't know of any better proof for that than the 
simple fact we have had to write disaster bills the last 3 years to try 
to cope with the wreckage that is represented by this Federal farm 
policy: the lowest prices in 50 years; thousands of farmers being 
pushed off the land; an agricultural economy that is in deep trouble.
  I hope next week, when we take a vote on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, there will be strong bipartisan support for that 
package, and then when we convene next year we will begin the debate on 
a new Federal farm policy, one that recognizes that our major 
competitors are on the move. They are on the march. They have a 
strategy. They have a plan. They have an intention to dominate world 
agricultural trade, and we have an obligation to fight back, to give 
our producers, our farmers a fair fighting chance.
  So far we have said to our farmers, you go out there and compete 
against the French farmer or the German farmer. And while you are at 
it, you take on the French Government and the German Government, too. 
That is not a fair fight. Our producers can compete against any 
producers anywhere in the world, but only if they have a level playing 
field, only if it is a fair fight. They can't win if the deck is 
stacked against them. That is precisely what is happening now. The deck 
is stacked against our producers in a way that is devastating.
  It reminds me of the cold war, where we built up to build down. I 
believe we have to follow that same principle in

[[Page S10523]]

this trade confrontation with Europe. We have to add resources to force 
them to the table to negotiate to level the playing field so our 
producers are not at this extraordinary disadvantage where Europe 
spends $300 an acre on average to support their producers while we 
spend $30, where the Europeans account for 84 percent of all the 
world's agricultural export subsidy while we account for only 1.4 
percent, outgunned 60 to 1. It is pretty hard to win a fight when you 
are outgunned 60 to 1 or 10 to 1. It makes it virtually impossible for 
our very efficient producers, very hard-working people, to have any 
kind of a chance.
  These are the harsh realities of what is occurring in world 
agriculture. I hope next week, when that bill comes before the Chamber, 
we will stand up and vote aye. I hope when we start next year the 
debate and discussion about a new farm bill, we will recognize the 
harsh realities of what is happening in these world agricultural 
markets.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to support the Agriculture appropriations conference report 
that will be considered by this body in the next few days. I think it 
is a good bill with a number of desperately needed aid provisions for 
our Nation's farmers. The provisions included in the bill for 
prescriptions are also desirable.
  First, though, I want to talk a little about my own family history 
and why I am so proud and honored to be the author of the legislation 
with respect to prescription drugs and pharmacies. My family, on the 
Jeffords side, came to Vermont back in 1794. At least, that is the 
first time they bought a piece of land. They settled in the northern 
part of Vermont up on the Canadian border. Gradually, they moved down 
to a community a little further south, about 20, 30 miles from the 
Canadian border. The family ran a drugstore in Enosberg Falls called 
Jeffords Drug Store for over a hundred years.
  I remember the summers so vividly. We always spent 2 weeks in 
Enosberg Falls, spent a week on the family farm, and then spent a week 
down in town with Roger Pratt and Cora Pratt, my uncle and aunt who ran 
the drugstore. I remember some wonderful times there. I could go up to 
the soda fountain, without having to do anything, and I could get a 
soda. Sometimes, I would be given the job of trying to swat the flies 
and keep the flies away. That was before we had insecticides. I know 
sometimes I would probably get a little annoying when I was 8 or 9 
years old while swatting them too close to the patrons sitting at the 
little tables where they got sodas. Later, I had the great thrill of 
being able to stand behind the pharmacy's soda fountain and make 
sundaes and all sorts of things. It was a wonderful experience.
  But what I learned more than anything else was the importance of a 
pharmacy to a small town. In those days, it was probably as much of the 
health care plan as you could get, along with the local doctor. The 
pharmacy was your health care, unless you got really sick and you would 
go to the hospital. But more people came in to get advice from the 
pharmacist as to what they should take for this or for that. Things 
went along very fine for many years.
  As time went on, my uncle died. My aunt, who was not a pharmacist, 
was working the drugstore and she had to hire a pharmacist to do that 
work. Unfortunately, she died. When she died, the question was, Who is 
going to get the drugstore and the property? I took the position that I 
would be willing to sell it to the pharmacist. I got it appraised, and 
a price was set. He said, ``I'm sorry, but I'm going to go down the 
street and open a pharmacy and I will run you out of business.'' I 
said, ``Okay, go right ahead''--because I am a stubborn Vermonter--``I 
will run you out of business.'' So I had to go around the State and 
find a pharmacist. So we kept the competition going.
  I finally sold the drugstore for twice what he wanted to pay, and I 
learned important things such as if you want a generic aspirin, you can 
look right next to the Bayer aspirin, and you will find an aspirin that 
is identical but in a different bottle, and it is cheaper. I have used 
that knowledge all through the years to save a buck on aspirin and 
other things. Many useful lessons have come from that experience.
  What I also understood by being near the Canadian border was what it 
meant to that pharmacist in recent years. The drugs his pharmacy 
purchased cost twice as much as the pharmacist paid across the border 
in Canada.
  It is more than just a casual knowledge that led me to become deeply 
involved in the bill which we now have as part of the appropriations 
bill.
  I thank Senator Specter and Chairman Cochran for their very kind 
words about me and my work in this area. I deeply appreciate that.
  Mr. Jeffords. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to support the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report 
that will be considered by this body within the next few days. I think 
it is a good bill, with a number of desperately needed aid provisions 
for our nation's farmers. But today I would like to address the 
Prescription Drug Importation provision included in the bill.
  We are all familiar with the problem. The cost of drugs, as a 
percentage of our health care dollar, is skyrocketing to the point of 
unaffordability for average Americans. During a time when we are 
experiencing unprecedented economic growth, it is not uncommon to hear 
of patients who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make 
prescriptions last longer, because they can't afford the refill. 
Prescription medicines have revolutionized the treatment of certain 
diseases, but they are only effective if patients have access to the 
medicines that their doctors prescribe. The fact is, failure to take 
certain medicine can be just as deadly as taking the wrong pill.
  Today we are confounded by the question: Why do drugs cost so much 
more in the U.S. than in Canada or abroad? It's a good question--one 
for which the drug companies don't have any good answers.
  It's true that these companies are making some miraculous 
breakthroughs. But why must Americans have to shoulder seemingly the 
entire burden of paying for research, development and a healthy return 
to shareholders?
  I believe it is time we put an end to this unfair burden. I don't 
think it is fair to expect Americans, especially your senior citizens 
living on fixed incomes, to pay the highest costs in the world for 
prescription medicines, many of which are manufactured within our 
borders.
  That's why more than a year ago I started working with the Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for overseeing the 
safety of the drug supply in this country, to see if there were a way 
we could safely reimport prescription medicines into our country.
  In July, on an overwhelming vote of 74-21, the United States Senate 
agreed to an amendment I offered, based on S. 2520, cosponsored by 
Senators Wellstone, Dorgan, Snowe, Collins, and others, to do just 
that. Importantly, for the first time, we had developed and passed a 
proposal that did not, in the eyes of FDA, present public health and 
safety concerns. This was critical to me, because we have the gold 
standard in the U.S. when it comes to drug safety, and I don't want to 
do anything to undermine it.
  Over the past few months, the drug companies have waged a furious 
campaign against my amendment, taking out advertisements and sending 
legions of lobbyists to Capitol Hill to argue that it would undermine 
safety. I don't think my amendment will undermine safety, but I do 
think it will undermine the price Americans pay for prescription drugs.
  I was heartened by the positive movement in the Clinton 
administration over the past few weeks, from neutrality in July to 
outright support for my amendment, provided Congress gave enough 
money--$23 million this year--to FDA to carry out its responsibilities. 
Congress has agreed to do so, and if my proposal works out as I hope, 
it will be a small price to pay on the

[[Page S10524]]

potential billions of dollars that Americans will save on prescription 
drug costs.
  The negotiators for the House and Senate on the agriculture 
appropriations bill have completed their work. Unfortunately, the 
process used in reaching this agreement was marred by partisanship. But 
the product is as strong as the one endorsed by the Clinton 
administration, and even stronger in some respects.
  The proposal before Congress, while slightly different from my plan, 
is a strong and workable proposal. Critics have argued that the 
proposal has been weakened because it allows drug companies to 
frustrate the intent through manipulations of sales contracts. The fact 
is, this bill is stronger than either the House-passed or Senate-passed 
versions because it includes a clear prohibition of such agreements--
something that was missing in the House and Senate bills.
  Critics have claimed that the latest version of the bill contains a 
loophole regarding the labeling requirements. The fact is, the bill 
requires manufacturers to provide all necessary labeling information, 
and gives the FDA very broad power to write any other rules necessary 
to accomplish the intent of the provision. How much stronger can we get 
than that.
  Critics have claimed that the bill unfairly restricts the countries 
from which these products may come. The fact is that the bill lists 23 
countries to start the process, and lets the FDA expand the list at any 
time.
  Critics have complained that this bill will expire after about 7 
years.
  The fact is that this is a vast improvement over the House-passed 
version which would have expired after only one year. As we all know, 
major legislation is frequently required to be reauthorized on 5 year 
cycles in order to force Congress to make improvements, and popular 
laws always survive this process.
  This bill, like any other, is not perfect. But critics are wrong to 
suggest that it is weaker than the original Jeffords amendment. I ought 
to know. And so should John Rector, senior vice president for the 
National Community Pharmacists Association who has been a leader in the 
effort to reimport lower cost drugs and whose members would be 
responsible for making this proposal work.
  Mr. Rector recently took the position that the bill, ``will result in 
the importation of far less expensive drugs.''
  Might the drug companies try to evade the spirit of this legislation? 
some probably will. Have we anticipated every action they might take? 
Of course not.
  But I am confident that our proposal will work, and that the process 
has improved it. That is why the pharmaceutical industry is fighting 
this tooth and nail--they know it will work. They would like nothing 
more than to see us defeat this bill. That should tell you something 
about what they think the effect will be of this provision.
  Mr. President, I must say--I am disappointed with how partisan this 
issue has become, and I am disappointed that the White House has moved 
the goal posts on this issue. In fact, I'd like to quote from the 
letter that President Clinton sent to Speaker Hastert and Majority 
Leader Lott less than 3 weeks ago. In that letter, he said ``I support 
the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 which the Senate 
passed'' and ``I urge you to send me the Senate legislation--with full 
funding.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what we are doing, except 
that the bill we are sending the President is even stronger than the 
original language.
  But I am glad that the President has said he will sign the bill. I 
think this is because he knows that, at the end of the day, this 
provision will work, despite all of the political rhetoric.
  I urge my colleagues to support this provision and support this 
Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  I also would like to discuss the chart that is behind me that very 
succinctly asks and answers questions about the differences between the 
House amendment, the Senate amendment, and the conference agreement.
  I think you will find by just looking at the complete list on the 
conference agreement, the important improvements that were made as it 
wondered through the normal legislative process which we all have to 
follow.
  I ask unanimous consent a letter from the White House of September 25 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Santa Fe, September 25, 2000.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:) In your letter, you 
     outlined a number of health care issues that you indicated 
     could be resolved before Congress adjourns. I want to be 
     equally clear about my priorities and hopes for progress this 
     fall. As the days dwindle in this session of Congress, I am 
     seriously concerned about the lack of movement on some of our 
     most important issues. I am, however, encouraged to learn 
     from your letter that the Republican leadership is now 
     committed to providing Americans with access to prescription 
     drugs available at lower cost from other countries.
       As you know, our people are growing more and more concerned 
     that the pharmaceutical industry often sells the same drugs 
     for a much higher price in the United States than it does in 
     other countries, even when those drugs are manufactured here 
     at home. This forces some of our most vulnerable citizens, 
     including seniors and people with disabilities, to pay the 
     highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. This is 
     simply unacceptable.
       That is why I support the ``Medicine Equity and Drug Safety 
     Act of 2000,'' which the Senate passed by an overwhelming 
     vote of 74 to 21. This important legislation would give 
     Americans access to quality medications at the lower prices 
     paid by citizens in other nations. The Senate bill, sponsored 
     by Senators jeffords, Wellstone, Dorgan and others, would 
     allow wholesalers and pharmacists to import FDA-approved 
     prescription drugs and would establish a new safety system 
     intended to track these imports and test them for 
     authenticity and degradation. Before this provision could 
     take effect, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would 
     be required to certify that the regulations would, first, 
     pose no risk to the public health; and, second, significantly 
     decrease prices paid by consumers. With these protections in 
     place and the $23 million necessary to implement them, this 
     legislation would meet the test that we both believe is 
     crucial--preserving the safety of America's drug supply.
       Although your letter implies support for legislation 
     similar to the Senate-passed bill, I am concerned by its 
     statement that seniors would ``buy lower-priced drugs in 
     countries like Canada'' [emphasis added]. Of course, few 
     seniors live near the Canadian or Mexican borders and even 
     fewer can afford to cross the border in search of lower-price 
     drugs. Moreover, policies like the House's Coburn amendment 
     would strip the FDA of all of its ability to monitor safety 
     and prevent seniors from buying counterfeit drugs, putting 
     their health in danger and their finances at risk.
       I urge you to send me the Senate legislation--with full 
     funding--to let wholesalers and pharmacists bring affordable 
     prescription drugs to the neighborhoods where our seniors 
     live. Though this initiative does not address seniors' most 
     important need--meaningful insurance to cover the costs of 
     expensive medications--it still has real potential to allow 
     consumers to access prescription drug discounts.
       I remain concerned that with less than one week left in 
     this fiscal year, Congress has not passed eleven of thirteen 
     appropriations bills; Congress has not raised the minimum 
     wage; and Congress has not passed a strong, enforceable 
     patients' bill of rights. And, according to your letter, the 
     congressional leadership has given up on passing a 
     meaningful, affordable and optional Medicare prescription-
     drug benefit.
       I am extremely disappointed by your determination that it 
     is impossible to pass a voluntary Medicare prescription-drug 
     benefit this year. I simply disagree. There is indeed time to 
     act, and I urge you to use the final weeks of this Congress 
     to get this important work done. It is the only way we can 
     ensure rapid, substantial and much-needed relief from 
     prescription drug costs for all seniors and people with 
     disabilities, including low-income beneficiaries.
       On the issue of the Medicare lock-box, I have endorsed the 
     Vice President's initiative, which has been effectively 
     embodied in Senator Conrad's amendment that passed on the 
     Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. I am 
     therefore encouraged by your commitment to passing this 
     legislation; but we must still make all efforts to ensure 
     that the Medicare payroll taxes in the lockbox are used 
     solely for Medicare.
       Similarly, I am pleased to learn of your commitment to pass 
     a greatly-needed package of Medicare and Medicaid health care 
     provider payment and beneficiary refinements. As you know, I 
     proposed such refinements in my budget and in my June Mid-
     Session Review. This includes payment increases for 
     hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes and other 
     providers as well as access to Medicaid for legal immigrants, 
     certain uninsured women with breast cancer, and children with 
     disabilities; extended Medicare coverage for people with 
     disabilities; an extension of the Balanced Budget Act's 
     diabetes provisions; and full funding for the Ricky Ray Trust 
     Fund.
       Again, I am pleased to learn of your commitment to 
     providing Americans with access to high-quality, lower cost 
     prescription drugs from other nations. There is no reason

[[Page S10525]]

     why we cannot work together to pass and enact such 
     legislation immediately. As we do, we should not give up on 
     passing both a workable, affordable and voluntary Medicare 
     prescription-drug benefit for our nation's seniors and a 
     meaningful patients' bill of rights for all Americans. I will 
     do everything in my power to achieve that end, and I look 
     forward to meeting with you on these issues as soon as 
     possible.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Clinton.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to have printed a side-by-side 
comparison, which is the chart I have behind me.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG IMPORT PROVISIONS IN AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Coburn and
                                Crowley Amend't      Jeffords Amendment
                                (passed 370-12,   (Supported by President           Conference Agreement
                                363-12 on 1/10/   Clinton and passed 74-21
                                      00)               on 7/19/00)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration.....................  1 year..........  Permanent................  Approx. 7 yrs (5 yrs from
                                                                             implementation).
Safety Provisions............  No provision....  FDA testing regulations &  Same as Jeffords Amendment, plus FDA
                                                  discretion to require      can stop imports of counterfeit
                                                  other safety measures.     products.
Scope of allowable countries   Coburn bill:      FDA's discretion.........  7 major developed countries, plus
 exporting drugs to U.S..       Can. & Mex. and                              European Union & European economic
                                Crowley bill:                                area, plus list is expanded at any
                                any country.                                 time by FDA.
Limit on Contracts that        No provision....  No provision.............  Bars contracts or agreements
 Frustrate Intent.                                                           preventing sales or distribution to
                                                                             importers.
Labeling Requirements........  No provision....  Manufacturer must give     Same as Jeffords amendment, plus FDA
                                                  information needed to      has broad power to do whatever is
                                                  ``confirm that the         necessary to facilitate imports.
                                                  labeling meets the
                                                  requirements of this
                                                  Act''.
Funding......................  No provision....  No provision.............  $23 Million.
Restrict imports of            No provision....  No provision.............  Prohibits importation of controlled
 controlled substances.                                                      substances listed on Schedules I,
                                                                             II, III.
Charitable contributions.....  No provision....  No provision.............  Excludes charitable contributions
                                                                             from importation, eg. AIDS drugs to
                                                                             Africa.
Sanctions....................  No provision....  Withdrawal of product for  10 years in jail for CEO, and
                                                  manufacturer               $25,000 fine if manufacturer is
                                                  noncompliance.             noncompliant.
Reporting Requirements.......  No provision....  Extensive requirements     Same as Jeffords Amendment.
                                                  that assure FDA tracking
                                                  of bad drugs and ensure
                                                  that savings are passed
                                                  on to consumers.
FDA warning letters..........  No provision....  No provision.............  Prohibit FDA from unfairly harassing
                                                                             Americans for purchasing safe drugs
                                                                             in Canada, Mexico and elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Senator James Jeffords.


    COMPARISON OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG IMPORT PROVISIONS IN AGRICULTURE
                     APPROPRIATIONS BILL, H.R. 4461
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         House      Senate    Conference
                                       amendment   amendment   agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective for longer than 1 year....       None          
Safety testing and tracking.........       None          
List of initial eligible countries         None        None     
 of origin to be expanded by FDA....
Outlaw agreements that bar reimports       None        None     
Requires proper labeling............       None          
Funding.............................       None        None     
Restrict imports of controlled             None        None     
 substances.........................
Incentive for charitable                   None        None     
 contributions......................
Sanctions...........................       None          
Reporting Requirements..............       None          
Prohibit unfair harassment by FDA          None        None     
 for Personal Imports...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as expected, Chairman Cochran and Senator 
Kohl have once again crafted an excellent Agriculture Appropriations 
bill that benefits not only the State of Washington, but natural 
resource dependent communities and rural economies all across the 
nation.
  For my own State of Washington, this equates to more than $5 million 
in essential research programs for wheat, apples, asparagus, animal 
diseases, small fruits, barley and potatoes to name a few. I have long 
advocated for increased emphasis on agriculture research, noting that 
projects such as these advance the development of new technology, 
generate healthy food systems, promote environmentally sound growing 
practices, and maintain the U.S. dominance in agriculture production.
  Also included in the legislation are the indispensable relief funds 
necessary to ensure the longevity of the once highly profitable and 
prosperous tree fruit industry in Washington. The $138 million in 
direct payments to apple producers will provide necessary short-term 
relief favored by Washington's orchardists.
  The cranberry industry, lesser known to most but still one of the 
hardest hit in the agriculture economy, will also benefit from $50 
million in relief.
  In response to the other natural disasters that have plagued our 
nation, $3.4 billion in emergency spending is included for farmers and 
rural areas that have already experienced continued low farm commodity 
prices.
  While the core issues in the bill are of great significance, there 
are two other issues in the conference report I wish to highlight. Both 
the sanctions relief and drug re-importation provisions deserve the 
Senate's support.
  With respect to sanctions relief, I believe few members of Congress 
would argue that food and medicine sanctions fail to cripple regimes or 
handicap the ability of dictators to simply find these goods elsewhere. 
What sanctions on food and medicine do promote are uncompensated losses 
to America's farmers and poor health in sanctioned countries.
  For more than a year-and-a-half, many members of this body have 
fought to right this situation and remove these onerous barriers. 
Obviously our efforts to provide a comprehensive package of sanctions 
reform has been met with determined resistance.
  With that said, however, the compromise my friend and colleague from 
Washington, Mr. Nethercutt, brokered to the best of his ability, 
without ever losing sight of the common goal of sanctions relief, and 
to the severe chagrin of several influential members, was agreed to by 
the Agriculture Appropriations conference committee, of which I was a 
member.
  While some will argue that this compromise is not comprehensive 
enough and does not perfectly mirror the language of the original 
Senate bill, this language is unquestionably significant. What the 
language does include is sanctions relief for exports to Cuba, Iran, 
Sudan, North Korea, and Libya. If my colleagues believe this major 
shift in policy does not make a positive statement regarding Congress' 
intent to provide sanctions reform, I think they are sadly mistaken.
  Perhaps even more pivotal, this language prohibits the Administration 
from imposing any new unilateral food or medicine sanctions without the 
consent of Congress. What with the Administration considering wheat 
sanctions on Japan for that country's whaling practices, I hope this 
change in policy will be supported by agriculture advocates. This is 
another significant goal the sanctions coalition has sought to attain.
  I choose not to argue with my colleagues over the merits of the Cuba 
travel or financing restrictions contained in the bill, but instead 
choose to remind my colleagues that we have accomplished something 
great here.
  While this compromise does not reflect everything we intended when we 
sought to achieve our goals, it does contain the core principles 
necessary in order to ensure unilateral sanctions reform. And I remind 
my colleagues that it is a compromise.
  It's not perfect. It's a starting point, a means by which we test the 
system. If the changes we have incorporated into this bill aren't 
workable, then we will work to change them.
  No one in this body believes agriculture trade will resurrect with 
each of these countries overnight. Will Iran announce a wheat tender in 
the next few months? Few years? We cannot tell. Sanctions reform will 
take work, and it will take time. But we must begin somewhere and we 
must begin now rather than later.
  I fear some of my colleagues have lost sight of the ultimate goal, 
and I hope they and the Administration would not seek to undermine the 
language our agriculture community supports and desires.
  As a representative for a Northern border state, I have been privy to 
issues surrounding drug prices. Everyday Americans pay 50 percent, 60 
percent, 70 percent or more for prescription drugs than our neighbors 
in Canada, in Mexico and for that matter most of the rest of the world. 
Who does

[[Page S10526]]

this affect most? Those who take the most prescription drugs--typically 
seniors, and those without any kind of prescription drug coverage from 
their insurance. But all Americans pay more whether through higher 
prices at the drugstore counter or higher insurance premiums.
  Why does this problem exist? American pharmaceutical companies sell 
the exact same prescription drugs overseas, drugs developed and 
manufactured here in the U.S., for a fraction of the price they demand 
from American citizens. Other countries have implemented price control 
policies that successfully tempt manufacturers to discriminate against 
American consumers with higher drug prices. Our drug companies agree 
because the costs of manufacturing are nominal, and they can make some 
profit overseas by simply charging Americans all of the high costs of 
research and development.
  This bill takes a first step towards solving this problem. It allows 
wholesalers and pharmacists to go to Canada and other countries where 
prescription drugs are sold at deep discounts and bring the same FDA-
approved, FDA-manufactured products back to the U.S. in order to pass 
the discounts on to American consumers.
  It is important to note that safety is a priority in this bill. Only 
products that have been determined to be safe and effective can be 
brought into the United Sates. The importer is required to test for 
authenticity and degradation. And importers can only bring in these 
products from countries that the Secretary of HHS has determined have 
an appropriate regulatory infrastructure to ensure the safety of 
prescription drugs.
  This provision should give our American families access to lower cost 
prescription drugs that are safe and effective.
  Is it perfect? Probably not. But, I hope it will work and I hope it 
results in lower prices for consumers in the U.S. and eventually puts 
pressure on drug companies to end price discrimination in the U.S. 
Critics say the bill has loopholes and drug companies will find a way 
around it. Let me be clear--if they do I will be back to make sure this 
provision is even stronger. I hope that is not necessary, that drug 
companies will simply end the current discrimination against Americans 
by charging fair prices here in the United States.
  This is not my favorite idea for dealing with price discrimination. 
It is a much more complicated solution than I would prefer.
  My idea is straightforward and based on a law that has applied to 
every product sale in the U.S. since 1935--the Robinson-Patman Act. 
This law simply says that manufacturers can't use price to discriminate 
among buyers. If that principle is applied to prescription drug sales 
overseas--drug companies would no longer be allowed to discriminate 
against their best customers--American families.
  But this bill is something that can be done this year to lower prices 
for American consumers. I believe it represents a genuine step forward 
to lower prescription drug costs for all Americans.
  With all that said, the bill before the Senate not only represents a 
response to the core needs of agriculture, but signifies a profound 
shift in sanctions reform, and puts the drug companies on notice. While 
I have indicated that neither proposal represents perfection, what each 
does signify is the goal of Congress to address issues vital to those 
we represent. I sincerely hope my colleagues will work to pass this 
bill without hesitation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we do have a number of items that have been 
cleared for consideration, including in this package a series of energy 
bills that Senator Daschle and I talked about yesterday on the floor. 
There are a number of Senators who have been involved in this effort. I 
thank them all. This is important legislation.
  We do have a number of other unanimous consent requests we will need 
to go through. It will take a few minutes. There are a lot of very 
important issues here. Most of them have been cleared on both sides. 
There may be a couple here that there will be objections to, but there 
is a necessity to make that request.

                          ____________________