Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 96 (Wednesday, July 11, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 11, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3874-H3927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution
183 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2330.

{time} 1135

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R.

[[Page H3875]]

2330) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Goodlatte in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June
28, 2001, the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) had
been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 49, line
9, through page 57, line 15.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the bill shall be in order except the following amendments, which
may be offered only by the Member designated in the request, or a
designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for a division of the question.
An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) regarding Buy
American for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) related to total
cost of research and development and approvals of new drugs for 10
minutes;
Three amendments by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) related to
biofuels, BSE, and the 4-H Program Centennial, each for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) related to
watershed and flood operations for 10 minutes;
Two amendments by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) related to
the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center and the Oceanic Institute of
Hawaii, each for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) related to
price supports for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) related to
allocations under the market access program for 10 minutes;
Three amendments by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) related
to the Food Security Act, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, and
the nitrogen-fixing ability of plants, each for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) related to
Hispanic-serving institutions for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) related
to HIV for 10 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Brown related to abbreviated applications for the
approval of new drugs under section 505(j) of the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), or the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), related to elderly nutrition,
for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton)
related to socially disadvantaged farmers for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) related to
American Rivers Heritage for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) related to
transgenic fish for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) related
to drug importation for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) related to
drug importation for 40 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) related to
mohair for 40 minutes; and
An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), or the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), related to Kyoto, which may be
brought up at any time during consideration, for 60 minutes.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word to permit me to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished
chairman of our Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) to provide assistance to all of the farmers
throughout our Nation. Our onion growers in Orange County, New York,
have suffered devastating losses over the past 5 years due to weather
problems and are in desperate need of meaningful assistance.
The small sums which crop insurance have paid to these onion growers
due to their losses failed to provide anything close to minimal relief.
Accordingly, our farming families continue to lose their farms.
Individuals are being uprooted in and a traditional way of life is
being jeopardized and a segment of our national food supply is being
further diminished.
Our Hudson Valley onion growers represent one of the largest onion
growing areas east of the Mississippi. These are the very upheavals
which crop insurance was designed to prevent.
While I know it will come as no surprise to our distinguished
chairman that our onion growers in Orange County are proud that they
have sought very few government subsidies, however the current plight
of these hardworking producers threaten the overall fate of our Hudson
Valley, our State, and our Nation's agricultural industry. As their
representative, I can no longer allow this devastating situation to go
unnoticed and unassisted and will greatly appreciate the willingness of
the chairman to work with me on this important matter.
Accordingly, can I ask the commitment of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla) to work with me in the conference committee to provide
assistance to our onion growers in Orange County, New York, who have
incurred substantial crop losses due to the damaging weather-related
conditions in 3 of the last 4 years?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to say that I
hope that the constituents back home of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) understand how hard he has been working on this issue.
Mr. GILMAN. I appreciate that.
Mr. BONILLA. This is not something that, as the gentleman is
presenting it to us today, we are hearing for the first time. The
gentleman has done yeoman's work on bringing this issue to our
attention; and we know it is a very serious problem.
It is going to be a difficult issue for us to deal with, but I do
commit to the gentleman that we will do what we can and whatever might
be possible between now and conference to help the growers back home.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for
his encouraging words, and I look forward to working with him.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, $2,950,000, solely for carrying out section
804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, to be
available only after the requirements of section 804(l) have
been satisfied.
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.

buildings and facilities

For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $34,281,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of
space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $70,700,000, including not to
exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation
expenses.

Farm Credit Administration

limitation of administrative expenses

Not to exceed $36,700,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

[[Page H3876]]

TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for fiscal year 2002 under this Act shall be
available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically
provided for, of not to exceed 379 passenger motor vehicles,
of which 378 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire
of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of
Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of
the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and
service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of
June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the
Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302
of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and
chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be
available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and
chapter.
Sec. 704. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
unobligated balances of funds appropriated by this Act or
other available unobligated balances of the Department of
Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund for the acquisition
of plant and capital equipment necessary for the delivery of
financial, administrative, and information technology
services of primary benefit to the agencies of the Department
of Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made
available by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred
to the Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the
agency administrator: Provided further, That none of the
funds transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to
this section shall be available for obligation without the
prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress.
Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions,
fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project,
boll weevil program, up to 25 percent of the screwworm
program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with
colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection
Service, field automation and information management project;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)),
funds for the Research, Education and Economics Information
System (REEIS), and funds for the Native American
Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries
and expenses funds made available to county committees;
Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training
program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural
Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates,
subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations
available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall
be available to provide appropriate orientation and language
training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28,
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b).
Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 709. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of
other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such
space will be jointly occupied.
Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against competitive
agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards
issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service that exceed 19 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded
competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service shall be available to pay full
allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section
9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 711. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered
estimates, not limitations.
Sec. 712. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
fiscal year 2002 shall remain available until expended to
cover obligations made in fiscal year 2002 for the following
accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund program account;
the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the Rural
Electrification and Telecommunications Loans program account;
the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; and the
Rural Economic Development Loans program account.
Sec. 713. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United
States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to
reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing
Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a
state or cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing
programs, to carry out programs to protect the nation's
animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational
programs or special studies to improve the safety of the
nation's food supply.
Sec. 714. Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including provisions of law requiring competition), the
Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative
agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or
services, including personal services) with a State,
political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private
agency, organization, or any other person, if the Secretary
determines that the objectives of the agreement will: (1)
serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in
carrying out the programs administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will
contribute resources to the accomplishment of these
objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds
obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level
obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such
purposes in fiscal year 1998.
Sec. 715. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural
Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount
within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the
creation of which has not specifically been authorized by
statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury
or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of
the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which
is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall
receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in
section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 716. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 717. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 718. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to
transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of
Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that
are a result of information requested for the appropriations
hearing process.
Sec. 720. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress.
Sec. 721. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2002, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Committees on Appropriations of

[[Page H3877]]

both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
fiscal year 2002, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
before implementing a program or activity not carried out
during the previous fiscal year unless the program or
activity is funded by this Act or specifically funded by any
other Act.
Sec. 722. With the exception of funds needed to administer
and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations
incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel
to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for
Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f).
Sec. 723. With the exception of funds needed to administer
and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations
incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel
to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-
185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
(7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option
program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb).
Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from
the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not
been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget
unless such Budget submission identifies which additional
spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees
proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening
of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2003
appropriations Act.
Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan.
Sec. 727. None of the funds made available by this Act or
any other Act may be used to close or relocate a state Rural
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and
enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
Sec. 728. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for
the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center.
Sec. 729. Hereafter, refunds or rebates received on an on-
going basis from a credit card services provider under the
Department of Agriculture's charge card programs may be
deposited to and retained without fiscal year limitation in
the Departmental Working Capital Fund established under 7
U.S.C. 2235 and used to fund management initiatives of
general benefit to the Department of Agriculture bureaus and
offices as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture or the
Secretary's designee.
Sec. 730. Notwithstanding section 412 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736f)
any balances available to carry out title III of such Act as
of the date of enactment of this Act, and any recoveries and
reimbursements that become available to carry out title III
of such Act, may be used to carry out title II of such Act.
Sec. 731. Section 375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(B)) is amended by
striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$26,000,000''.
Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking, to promulgate a proposed rule, or to
otherwise change or modify the definition of ``animal'' in
existing regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act.
Sec. 733. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
City of Cabot, Arkansas, and the City of Coachella,
California, shall be eligible for loans and grants provided
through the Rural Community Advancement Program.
Sec. 734. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall consider the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, as
meeting the requirements of a rural area in section 520 of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490).
Sec. 735. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
City of Saint Joseph, Missouri, shall be eligible for grants
and loans administered by the rural development mission areas
of the Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall consider the City of
Hollister, California, as meeting the requirements of a rural
area for the purposes of housing programs in the rural
development mission areas of the Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 737. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to maintain, modify, or
implement any assessment against agricultural producers as
part of a commodity promotion, research, and consumer
information order, known as a check-off program, that has not
been approved by the affected producers in accordance with
the statutory requirements applicable to the order.
Sec. 738. None of the funds made available to the Food and
Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to close or
relocate, or to plan to close or relocate, the Food and Drug
Administration Division of Drug Analysis (recently renamed
the Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis) in St. Louis,
Missouri, except that funds could be used to plan a possible
relocation of this Division within the city limits of St.
Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 739. None of the funds made available to the Food and
Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to reduce the
Detroit, Michigan, Food and Drug Administration District
Office below the operating and full-time equivalent staffing
level of July 31, 2000; or to change the Detroit District
Office to a station, residence post or similarly modified
office; or to reassign residence posts assigned to the
Detroit Office: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to Food and Drug Administration field laboratory facilities
or operations currently located in Detroit, Michigan, except
that field laboratory personnel shall be assigned to
locations in the general vicinity of Detroit, Michigan,
pursuant to cooperative agreements between the Food and Drug
Administration and other laboratory facilities associated
with the State of Michigan.

market loss assistance for apple producers

Sec. 740. (a) Assistance Available.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall use $150,000,000 of funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make payments as soon as possible after
the date of the enactment of this Act to apple producers to
provide relief for the loss of markets for their 2000 crop.
(b) Payment Basis.--The amount of the payment to a producer
under subsection (a) shall be made on a per pound basis equal
to each qualifying producer's 2000 production of apples,
except that the Secretary shall not make payments for that
amount of a particular farm's apple production that is in
excess of 20,000,000 pounds.
(c) Duplicative Payments.--A producer shall be ineligible
for payments under this section with respect to a market loss
for apples to the extent of that amount that the producer
received as compensation or assistance for the same loss
under any other Federal program, other than under the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(d) Other Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall not
establish any terms or conditions for producer eligibility,
such as limits based upon gross income, other than those
specified in this section.
(e) Applicability.--This section applies only with respect
to the 2000 crop of apples and producers of that crop.

Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74 line 21 be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Add before the short title at the end the following new
section:
Sec. ____. Of the amount provided in title I under the
heading ``extension activities'', $500,000 shall be available
to support the National 4-H Program Centennial Initiative, as
authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize funding
for the National 4-H Program Centennial Initiative''.

[[Page H3878]]

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw the amendment after a brief
discussion due to an understanding with the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) to look for funds for the celebration of the centennial
anniversary of National 4-H as we move toward conference.
Also, I do this out of respect for the National 4-H leadership that
has committed not to have those funds come at the expense of existing
extension programs which are already stretched.

{time} 1145

Our amendment would provide funding pursuant to an authorization that
was approved by the House 2 weeks ago when we voted for S. 657, the
National 4-H Program Centennial Initiative. The centennial will occur
next year, but planning obviously needs to begin immediately. In fact,
the President signed the relevant legislation yesterday. That measure
was a companion bill to H.R. 1388, introduced by the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske). That measure authorized $5 million for the National
4-H Council, with the expectation that those funds would be matched by
private contributions, and it also assumed the Secretary could use the
Fund for Rural America to finance some of the operations. However,
there is money for neither of these options in the bill.
Now, I think every American has been touched in some way by 4-H. It
operates in over 3,000 counties in each of our States and provides
truly constructive opportunities to young men and women in both rural
and urban areas. Just the fact that this magnificent organization has
existed for a century is something all Americans can truly celebrate.
But should this appropriation bill move forward without at least
beginning to address the funding issue, there is the risk that the
support for the centennial initiative would come too late. The amount
today that is in my amendment, $500,000, is only one-tenth of the
amount that is necessary, but it would get the activity going and
demonstrates we are serious about full support.
Over the coming months, between now and the final conference on the
bill, proponents will be in a position to work to identify the right
amount of resources needed for the program and to secure additional
funds for this bill. While today's amendment suggests that $500,000 out
of existing extension funds could be used, the long-term intention is
to obtain an increase for extension to finance the activity.
So, Mr. Chairman, in withdrawing this amendment, let me just say that
this Member, and I think the entire membership of the House, in voting
for this centennial celebration, would want to assure the success of
all activities related to it. The planning that must begin this year
and all the celebrations in the year 2002, will touch thousands and
thousands of lives of young people in our communities and all the good
works that they do. The 4-H deserve the full support of this Congress,
and we look forward to working with the chairman as we move toward
conference.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I would like to acknowledge
the gentlewoman's hard work on this issue and commit to working with
her as we move to conference to addressing the needs of our good 4-H
people around the country.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his
openness and willingness to work with us as we move toward conference.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7____. Of any shipments of commodities made pursuant
to section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C.
1431(b)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall, to the extent
practicable, direct that tonnage equal in value to not more
than $25,000,000 shall be made available to foreign countries
to assist in mitigating the effects of the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome on communities, including the provision of
(1) agricultural commodities to--
(A) individuals with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in the communities, and
(B) households in the communities, particularly individuals
caring for orphaned children; and
(2) agricultural commodities monetized to provide other
assistance (including assistance under microcredit and
microenterprise programs) to create or restore sustainable
livelihoods among individuals in the communities,
particularly individuals caring for orphaned children.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am
pleased to rise and join the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton), a member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on
Agriculture, in offering this amendment to ensure continued funding to
reduce the burden of hunger for HIV-AIDS patients and children orphaned
by AIDS in the developing world.
I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her
leadership on this issue. She worked with us on this issue in the
Committee on Agriculture as well as a member of the Congressional HIV
Task Force. She developed this proposal, and her leadership has been
very important, because this amendment affects so many millions of
families worldwide.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and
the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for their
leadership on the subcommittee and their support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for the record, but I just
want to make two quick points. Poor nutrition accelerates the
progression of HIV to AIDS, and an adequate food supply is critical to
any prevention and care strategy. When a family member becomes infected
with HIV, household food production is undermined, limited financial
resources are used for medical costs rather than crop production, and
family members are forced to care for the sick, rather than work in the
fields.
Starting last year, $25 million was provided through the Food for
Peace program to reduce the burden of hunger for families impacted by
AIDS through agricultural improvement, maternal and child health
programs and direct distribution of food commodities. Today's amendment
will continue this vital funding. I wish that we could have the number
be higher in the future, but the $25 million called for here is a very,
very important addition.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the real author of this amendment, and
commend her for her tremendous leadership.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California for her leadership on this and also her continuous and long-
standing leadership in fighting AIDS.
This is a unique opportunity to do good while doing well. The Food
for Peace program allows us to make contributions all across world
where there is suffering. What better effort than to direct $25 million
of the Food for Peace program to intervene and make the quality of life
of families who are suffering from AIDS, of children who are orphaned
from AIDS, to make this as an opportunity.
As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said already, this
program is available to be a prevention-intervention program. We are
increasingly

[[Page H3879]]

aware that the medication alone does not improve health by itself. Not
only that, but because of the health condition of the individual, their
productivity and ability to afford food has been decreased drastically.
I am very happy that the Republicans, as well as the Democrats, all
support this, and I want to commend the chairman for his support of
this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply state that I am not
opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment. A similar provision was
included in the conference agreement last year as section 743 of our
bill, without any objection of which I am aware. I would hope that we
can quickly move to a vote on this issue, and commend the gentlewoman's
work on this very important issue.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for
his words of cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the very distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the wonderful,
wonderful gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). Would I not know that the two of
them would do something this significant? What they are proposing is
only to continue what the House had agreed to do in conference last
year, and that is to use the food power of this country to help
alleviate suffering around the world, and certainly the plague of HIV/
AIDS.
Their effort uses the power of food in the most creative way
possible. Yet the sponsors of the amendment and all who support it
should keep in mind that the President's budget proposes a review of
the 416 programs with an eye toward reducing their availability. So,
those who utilize and understand these programs need to be prepared to
speak out before these programs are eliminated or reduced.
I want to thank the gentlewomen for bringing this up before the full
House to make sure that we effectively use the dollars that are there,
and not permit the food surplus of this country to be subscribed in a
way that would not be made available to those who truly need it
globally. I support them in their efforts.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Representative Clayton in
offering this amendment to ensure continued funding to reduce the
burden of hunger for HIV/AIDS patients and children orphaned by AIDS in
the developing world. I commend Representative Clayton for her
leadership on this issue, which affects so many millions of families
worldwide. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Kaptur and
Chairman Bonilla for their leadership on the Subcommittee and their
support for this amendment.
We have all heard the staggering statistics--36 million people
infected with HIV, 22 million deaths from AIDS, and nearly 14 million
children orphaned. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, ``AIDS in Africa
is a plague of biblical proportions. It is a holy war that we must
win.'' It is indeed, and the battles in this war occur on many fronts.
Poor nutrition accelerates the progression from HIV to AIDS. In
addition to the prevention, treatment, and infrastructure needs that
must be addressed to stem the tide of the pandemic, we must also
recognize that good nutrition is critical to any prevention and care
strategy.
The impact of HIV/AIDS on poor families goes beyond the pain that
accompanies the loss of a loved one. AIDS strikes people during their
most productive years, and family income is cut by more than half when
a parent is sick.
Household food production is undermined as limited financial
resources are used for medical costs rather than crop production, and
family members are forced to care for the sick rather than work in the
fields. Many families must mortgage their land and sell productive
assets, including livestock, to pay for food and medicine.
The U.S. has sought to reduce the burden of hunger that results from
families' diminished ability to produce food. Starting last year, $25
million was provided through the Food for Peace program to improve food
security through agricultural improvement, maternal and child health
programs, and direct distribution of food commodities.
Today's amendment continues this vital funding. I thank my colleagues
for their support of this important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Insert before the short title the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to eliminate the two
river navigator positions, including the contract position,
for the Hudson River and Upper Susquehanna/Lackawanna Rivers
or to alter the tasks assigned to the persons filling such
positions.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that ensures that two Federal
positions designated as river navigator positions, including the
contract positions for the Hudson River and the Susquehanna River, will
continue to function, and that they will be funded in this
appropriations bill.
I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for working with
us on this very important subject. I also want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who
has also been very deeply concerned about the continuation of these
positions, particularly in his case the position of river navigator for
the Susquehanna River, which is a river that flows through Pennsylvania
as well as New York.
I believe that the language that we have arrived at here is language
which is acceptable to the chairman of the subcommittee, and that the
amendment will be accepted by him.
Before I ask him that, I just want to make the point that these two
positions are very, very important. What they do is they coordinate all
Federal programs on these two rivers. These two rivers are two very
important rivers, the Susquehanna, of course, feeding into the
Chesapeake Bay, and there are a great many Federal programs, including
programs consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and others, that
are very important to these rivers and the people who live along them.
Therefore, Federal coordination of all programs associated with these
rivers is very important.
I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas,
for recognizing that importance, and I want to express to the gentleman
my appreciation for the ability to work with him and express my
pleasure in having had the opportunity to work with him on this
important issue.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the good amendment
that the gentleman from New York is offering, and tell him that we are
delighted to accept the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman for his
support of our very able colleague from New York who has such a
persevering record on attempting to get the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative fully operational for the city of New York and for rivers
immediately adjacent to and in his district, so that these local river
conservation plans become more than plans, but, in fact, help us to
preserve the precious fresh water resource

[[Page H3880]]

that is ours alone in this quadrant of the United States.
I would have to just say as the ranking member on the subcommittee,
no Member has fought harder for this program than the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey), and the people of New York have sent the right
man here to represent them.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee
on Appropriations, for those very kind words, and for her diligent and
very effective work on the committee. Once again, I want to extend my
appreciation to the chairman of our subcommittee and also to the staff
that works under his direction for their assistance in putting this
amendment together and for its successful acceptance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7 . None of the amounts made available in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration may be used for
enforcing section 801(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.

{time} 1200

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
It is about lowering the cost of prescription drugs so that the
American people do not have to pay by far the highest prices in the
world for prescription drugs. It is about ending the national disgrace
of tens of thousands of American citizens in New England, the Midwest,
the Northwest, from having to go across the Canadian border in order to
purchase the same exact prescription drugs that they buy at home for 50
percent of the cost or 60 percent of the cost or 20 percent of the
cost.
It is about ending the absurdity of American citizens in California,
Texas, Arizona, and the southern parts of our country of having to go
to Mexico for the same exact reason.
It is about allowing women in the United States who are fighting for
their lives against breast cancer so they do not have to pay 10 times
more than the women in Canada for Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed breast
cancer drug.
It is about telling the drug companies that they can no longer charge
the American people $1 for drugs when those same exact products are
sold in Germany for 60 cents, France for 51 cents, and Italy for 49
cents, the same exact products made by the same exact companies.
Mr. Chairman, for decades now, good people, Democrats, Republicans,
in the House and in the Senate, have attempted to do something about
lowering the cost of prescription drugs in this country so that the
American people do not have to pay outrageously high prices for their
medicine, so that doctors do not have to write out prescriptions
knowing that their patients cannot afford to fill them. But year after
year with lies, with scare tactics, with well-paid lobbyists and
massive amounts of campaign contributions the pharmaceutical industry
always wins. They never lose.
In the last three years alone the drug companies have spent $200
million in campaign contributions, lobbying and political advertising.
In the last election cycle they doubled the amount of campaign
contributions from 9 million to $18 million, and I have no doubt that
they are prepared to double it again.
The issue today is not only the high cost of prescription drugs. The
issue today is whether the Congress has the guts to stand up for their
constituents, people who are being ripped off, people who are dying and
suffering because they cannot afford sky-high prescription drug prices;
or do we cave in again to the pharmaceutical industry that is spending
so much money trying to buy our votes.
The pharmaceutical industry has endless amounts of money. Year after
year the industry sits at the top of the charts in profits. The top 10
companies last year made $27 billion in profits. They have a lot of
money to spend on Congress. Their top executives, well, they have a lot
of money to spend too.
A report came out yesterday from Families U.S.A., which talked about
the compensation of executives in the pharmaceutical industry.
At a time when Americans die and suffer because they cannot afford
prescription drugs, you might be interested to know that the CEO of
Bristol-Myers Squibb has unexercised stock options of over $227
million. Elderly people cannot afford prescription drugs, and this CEO
has unexercised stock options of over $227 million. Pfizer has $130
million in unexercised stock options. Merck has $180 million, and on
and on it goes.
Mr. Chairman, today in a tripartisan amendment, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul), and I are offering an amendment that is exactly the
same as the Crowley amendment that won overwhelmingly in the House last
year by a vote of 363 to 12.
As was the case last year, this amendment will serve as a place-
holder that will allow the Senate and conference committees to address
the pricing loopholes contained in last year's bill.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of people here talk about free trade. In a
globalized economy where we import millions of tons of beef, pork,
vegetables, and all kinds of food products from virtually every country
on earth, it is high time that we end the monopoly that the drug
companies have on the importation and reimportation of prescription
drugs in this country.
Prescription drug distributors and pharmacists should be able to
purchase and sell FDA safety-approved medicines at the same prices as
they are bought and sold in Canada, England, and every other major
country. The passage of reimportation could lower the cost of medicine
in this country by 30 to 50 percent and enable Americans to pay the
same prices as other people throughout the world. In a Nation which
spends $150 billion a year on prescription drugs, lowering the cost by
a conservative 30 percent could result in a $45 billion-a-year savings.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman seeks to solve one problem by creating another, and I
am going to cite some very, very serious testimony here from the Food
and Drug Administration that was presented in front of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and his Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations just last month.
At the hearing, the FDA stated, and I quote: ``From a public health
standpoint, importing prescription drugs for personal use is a
potentially dangerous practice. FDA and the public do not have any
assurance that unapproved products are effective or safe or have been
produced under U.S. good manufacturing practices. U.S.-made drugs that
are reimported may not have been stored under proper conditions or may
not be the real product, because the U.S. does not regulate foreign
distributors or pharmacies. Therefore, unapproved drugs and reimported
approved medications may be contaminated, subpotent, superpotent, or
even counterfeit.''
The FDA also said, and I quote: ``Under FDA's personal importation
policy, FDA inspectors may permit the importation of certain unapproved
prescription medications for personal use.

[[Page H3881]]

The current policy permits the exercise of enforcement discretion to
allow entry of an unapproved prescription drug if: the product is for
personal use, (a 90-day supply or less, and not for resale); the
intended use is for a serious condition for which effective treatment
may not be available domestically (and, therefore, the policy does not
permit inspectors to allow foreign versions of U.S.-approved drugs into
the U.S.); or there is no known commercialization or promotion to U.S.
residents by those involved in the distribution of the product.''
There are several other points here, but the bottom line is, this
could be a dangerous threat to consumers in this country. This is
ironclad testimony from the FDA on indicating that this could be
potentially dangerous.
The FDA has not officially permitted the importation of foreign
versions of U.S.-approved medications, even if sold under the same
name, because these products are unapproved, and the agency has no
assurances that these products are safe or effective. I would like to
inform my colleagues that both the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which is the authorizing committee for the FDA, and the administration
strongly oppose this language and any other language allowing for
importation of drugs.
So I rise in strong opposition. We will be hearing from other good
Members from the Committee on Commerce as well in just a few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the cosponsor of this legislation and a
real fighter in terms of lowering the price of prescription drugs.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Crowley-Rohrabacher-DeLauro-Paul amendment to help American families
and seniors get the necessary prescription drugs at affordable prices.
With spending on prescription drugs by seniors and others up by 18
percent last year to nearly $21 billion, we need to do everything that
we can to make them safe, effective, and affordable, make these drugs
accessible to those who need them.
One would think that this is a goal that we could rally around. But
no, once again, we are being fought by the pharmaceutical industry.
They oppose reimportation. That poses the question: What exactly are
they for?
They are against the Medicare prescription drug benefit for all
seniors. They are opposed to the Allen bill that would allow for
pharmacists to be able to purchase at a discounted rate, the
pharmaceuticals that Germany, France, Britain, and others can purchase.
They are against across-the-board price reductions. They never tell us
what they are for.
In fact, the only thing they seem to be for is extending their
patents and seeing their profits increase.
Last year, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies earned $26 billion in
profits. They oppose this amendment because the bill might cut into its
considerable profit margin. They are waging a massive million dollar
campaign to protect their agenda across the board. Over the past five
election cycles, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers
Association, the trade group for brand-name drug companies, gave nearly
$360 million in political contributions, lobbying and advertising
campaigns, to protect its legislative agenda.
Mr. Chairman, there are opponents of this amendment who raise the
safety issue. The fact is that reimportation is safe. It has worked for
years in Europe. Twenty-five percent of drugs consumed in European
countries are reimported. This legislation requires all imported drugs
to be the exact same FDA-approved medications that are sold in the
United States. Pharmaceutical labels must comply with FDA regulations.
Last year, Dr. David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner under
Presidents Bush and Clinton, stated that U.S.-licensed pharmacists and
wholesalers would be able to safely import quality prescription drugs.
He believes the importation of prescription drugs can be done without
causing a greater health risk to American consumers.
Let me just say that GlaxoWellcome is a British company. They send
drugs to the United States, and they are perfectly well approved.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely believe that we need to control
the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, but this is a terribly
misguided way to do it. I understand that the people who speak for this
amendment are very well motivated, but the fact is that they run the
risk because they are tackling this issue indirectly rather than
directly, they run the risk of allowing large numbers of adulterated
drugs into this country.
It is one thing to fight for access to affordable drugs for seniors;
it is another thing in the process to open our seniors up to the
dangers of adulterated or expired drugs, and that is exactly what this
amendment does.
If we take a look at what happened last year when we ran into a
similar approach, try though the Congress did, we wound up producing an
importation process which the Secretary of Health and Social Services
said she could not certify as to efficacy or safety, and so that
proposal could not go forward.
I would point out that every Member of the House has a letter from
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the ranking member, and various other members of the
committee, which says the following: ``Despite anybody's best
intention, if the Sanders amendment becomes law, our citizens will have
no idea whether the source of their pills is an FDA-approved facility
or an unregulated warehouse rented for the weekend by big business
counterfeiters and larcenists seeking to penetrate the U.S. market.
Drug counterfeiters present a severe and growing threat to the health
and safety of the United States consumers.''
If we want to deal with this problem, in my view, the correct way is
to support the Allen legislation, because that attacks this issue
directly. It directly lowers the price that is charged to seniors; it
does not force seniors to have to rely on questionable products
introduced into this country by larcenist sellers and winds up
threatening the health of senior citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, just as a point of fact, Donna Shalala did
not implement last year because of safety. It had nothing to do with
safety; it had to do with pricing loopholes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht), who has done an excellent job on this issue.

{time} 1215

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for
yielding time to me. I want to show a couple of charts, because we are
going to have several debates. This amendment is somewhat broader than
the one that I have drafted, but it really revolves around a couple of
important points.
One is the issue of price. I do not think anybody here today is going
to dispute this chart. I did not make this chart. This was done by the
Life Extension Foundation. The information is about 2 weeks old.
If we compare what Americans pay to what Europeans pay, and we are
talking about Europe here, not Mexico, not Third World countries, but
we are talking about Switzerland and Germany, where they do not have
price controls, at some point we are going to have to explain to our
constituents why we stand idly by and allow this chart to exist.
The issue they are going to raise, and it is going to be a red
herring, is safety. Safety. Understand this, Mr. Chairman, every day
millions of pounds of raw meat and vegetables come into this country,
and we have checked with the FDA, it is the Food and Drug
Administration, their own study in 1999 said that 4.4 percent of the
produce coming into the United States has dangerous pathogens,
including 3.3 percent have salmonella.
Do Members know what can happen if we get salmonella? We can get real
sick. In fact, we can die. That is every day that is coming into the
United States. Yet, there is no known scientific study where consumers
in the United States have been injured importing legal drugs from G-8
countries, not one. As a matter of fact, if we had

[[Page H3882]]

heard that, it would be all over. I suspect the pharmaceutical industry
would have that over every newspaper and on television.
The truth of the matter is that there is almost no risk to consumers
to bringing legal drugs back into the United States.
They are going to talk about illegal drugs. Nothing in the Sanders
amendment, nothing in my amendment, nothing that is going to be
discussed today is about legalizing illegal drugs. We are not talking
about the Medellin drug cartel, which incidentally does ship billions
of dollars worth of illegal drugs into the United States, and the FDA
is unable to do almost anything about it. What we are talking about
today is law-abiding citizens that have legal prescriptions that are
buying FDA-approved drugs from other countries.
If Members cannot explain that earlier chart, they should vote for
this amendment and they should vote for my amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who is the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me. I applaud the motives of the makers of the amendment. I voted
for the measure of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) last
year. I have looked into the issue a lot further since then and now
oppose it.
The previous speaker talked about the ability to assure that these
drugs are safe. Our seniors need safe and cost-effective drugs,
affordable drugs.
Here is what we found out. Institutions like this, counterfeiters,
are able to produce drugs in vermin-filled, filthy, and unhygienic
conditions. This is what they produce. They produce drugs, counterfeit
drugs, that look exactly like the real thing. There is another example
of that that we will put up of a drug that looks exactly like ours.
The point of the matter is, if we want seniors to have affordable
drugs and safe drugs, help is on the way. This morning's Washington
Post says, ``Bush Has Pharmacy Discount Card Plan.'' We are on the
verge of providing senior citizens affordable drugs. We can assure that
they are safe, and they are not dangerous drugs that are imported from
rat-infested, filthy laboratories like this one.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), our cosponsor.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Sanders amendment. We have to take a look at the substance here,
instead of trying to be diverted away from the central point of what is
going on by scare tactics.
I do not know if any Members have had calls come to their office last
night, but I had calls. My office was flooded with calls from people
who had been told that the Sanders amendment meant that marijuana and
heroin and all sorts of drugs would be permitted to flow across the
border. That type of scare tactics is unseemly in a debate as important
to the health of the American people as the issue that we are
discussing today.
It appears that the people on the other side of this issue are so
afraid of the actual facts that they have succumbed to this type of
scare tactic and dishonesty. That should play no part of this debate.
Let me note that we are being told that there will be a few Americans
who will be hurt if we pass the Sanders amendment because some people
will get hold of counterfeit drugs, some people will get hold of drugs
that are not exactly regulated correctly and produced correctly.
Yes, a few Americans might be hurt, and let us admit that. But what
we are talking about is the vast number of Americans who will be hurt
if they cannot afford to buy drugs. Certainly the number of people who
will be hurt by this is far less than the number of people who are
deterred from taking drugs that are important to their health because
they just cannot afford them.
This bill permits people, American citizens, and especially those who
live near the borders of another country, to go across those borders
and buy drugs that are being sold at a cheaper rate. Sometimes we have
seen it to be half as much, a third as much, sometimes one-quarter or
20 percent the price across that border than what they would have to
pay in the United States.
It makes no sense for us to talk about globalizing the economy and
globalizing the world economy without letting our people benefit from
the competitive advantages, the consumers' competitive advantages in
dealing on an international market.
We believe, okay, in free trade. We believe in a competitive market
and a global market. Let us let the American consumer benefit from
that. What will happen if we pass this amendment is that there will be
pressures, competitive and market pressures, on our own drug producers
here in the United States to lower the price of their product in the
United States as well. By defeating the Sanders amendment, we are not
protecting anybody. What we are doing is keeping the prices high and
protecting the pharmaceutical companies from competition.
I like the pharmaceutical companies, and I appreciate the good job
that they have done for the American people and for the people of the
world in developing new drugs. But that does not mean that they should
be free of competition. That does not mean that they should be able to
have differential pricing in one country versus another.
Let us stand up for the American people and also stand up for
competition at the same time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out by the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) a moment ago that in this letter that comes
from the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and other subcommittee chairs, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Deutsch), it points out clearly, the ALS Association, the National
Prostate Cancer Coalition, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the
Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, the National Kidney Cancer
Association, the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, all of these
groups are adamantly opposed to the Sanders amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is not about bringing illegal drugs in. This is
about whether we are going to withhold the gold standard of the Food
and Drug Administration in the United States of America.
In 1997, this House in a bipartisan way, and as a matter of fact,
under suspended rules in a unanimous vote, voted to modernize the Food
and Drug Administration. The one vigilant thing that every Member did
was to assure that the gold standard, that stamp of approval that we
say to the American people passes on from the FDA on manufactured
pharmaceuticals, was maintained.
As a matter of fact, when my good friend, the gentleman from
California, talked about global trade, one of our objectives with
global trade was to harmonize the standards of approval so that we
could reach the efficiencies of a global manufacturing base. We have
yet today to reach harmonization standards with the EU because we
cannot accept the Italian standard for drug approval.
But what this amendment does, it says we are going to defund any, any
and all reviews at our borders of reimported or imported drugs. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) just showed the awful
conditions where drugs are manufactured, where they look identical,
where they are packaged identically. Today the DEA, the FDA, the
Customs Department, they are all against this amendment. They are all
against reducing the gold standard that we currently find at the FDA.
As a matter of fact, the executive director of the trade program at
U.S. Customs had this quote: ``Counterfeit pharmaceuticals enter in
both wholesale and retail quantities. Additional problems include
expired material,

[[Page H3883]]

products that have not been approved by the FDA, products made in
facilities under no proper regulation, and products not having the
proper instructions for consumers to use.''
Mr. Chairman, we should not do this to the American people. We should
maintain the gold standard.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Crowley-DeLauro-Paul-Rohrabacher amendment. This language offered today
is the same language I offered last year in the agriculture
appropriations bill. We again offer this amendment as a first start to
provoke a discussion and get real reimportation language enacted into
law.
This is the only way Democrats and Independents can get heard on this
issue. The GOP-controlled House authorizing committees are not doing
their jobs. All we have seen to date was a hearing held earlier this
month in the Committee on Commerce on the horrors of reimportation, and
the arguments of that hearing have hardened my resolve in supporting
reimportation legislation.
Why? In part because of the comments from that hearing, such as the
opening statement of the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), where he remarked on June 7 of 2001, ``The problem of
counterfeit drugs is not just a phenomenon of the developing world. Our
lucrative market and ineffective import controls are increasingly
making the United States an attractive target for drug counterfeiters
and diverters.
``Last month three counterfeit prescription drugs were found in the
shelves of pharmacies of several States. It is not known whether these
fake drugs were made in the United States or overseas, but such a
cluster of counterfeits has not been seen for years in this country.''
The hearing proved that the FDA is unable to assure the U.S. public
that it can prevent unsafe imports from entering this country at this
point in time.
Yes, in fact counterfeit drugs are making their way onto the shores
and onto the shelves of pharmacies around this country. The legislation
that was enacted to stop it, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act
enacted in 1987, which included Section 801(d)1 that we are striking
funding for today, has not been successful in protecting consumers. It
has been tremendously successful in protecting, though, the interests
of the drug companies.
We as Democrats have been trying to pass legislation to find a
remedy, a legislative remedy to address the spiralling cost of
medications. Each time the leaders of the Congress have rebuffed us.
The GOP passed a fake prescription drug bill benefit last year so
weak that 178 of their Members later backed my amendment to the
agriculture appropriations bill last year making the reimportation a
better alternative to lowering the price of prescription drugs than
their party's plan.
This year, Congress expressed a collective round of laughter at the
drug proposal advanced by the White House, representing one of the
greatest feats of bipartisanship in recent memory.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we have so many speakers who feel strongly
about it that I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional
7\1/2\ minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. SANDERS. Does the gentleman not have people who want to debate
the issue?
Mr. BONILLA. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to no Member of this House
in terms of my efforts to lower prescription drug costs for seniors in
America. I support the efforts of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) to allow importation of drugs from outside the United States.
However, this amendment is not the way to do it. If we look
specifically at what this amendment does, it stops all funding for FDA
in terms of importation. That is what the amendment actually does. That
is a scary thing if we start to think about it.
What our subcommittee has done is actually we went essentially to the
borders, which is to the airport location where drugs come in. We have
also had hearings about drug labs that are taking place right now
producing some of these importations.
This is not Novartis in Switzerland, this could be in some back alley
somewhere in Mexico where it is not the drug, it is paint that is
coming in. This amendment cuts out all FDA funding in terms of
literally looking at the substance that would come into the United
States of America, and zip, nothing. We could not review that if this
amendment actually became law.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows this is not what we
are doing. This is a place holder for the Senate and the conference
committee to do what we did last year in developing a comprehensive
bill and doing away with the pricing loopholes.
Mr. DEUTSCH. I support the gentleman's efforts, but again, as a place
holder, we do not do place holders, we do real amendments. We do real
law.

{time} 1230

And, unfortunately, I understand the limitations that the gentleman
had in the appropriations process, and that this was a way to raise the
issue. It is an important issue, and I am glad it is being raised. But
when we vote, we actually vote on real things. Members that support
this legislation, in fact, are supporting no funding for the FDA to
regulate drugs that come into the United States of America. If any of
my colleagues had joined me in looking at the drugs that come in, I am
sure they would vote against this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise to strongly oppose this amendment. However, I agree
with the makers of the amendment and what they are trying to do. We all
do, indeed, want to see the price of medications come down, especially
for our senior citizens. But this is simply the wrong way to do it.
I am very fond of, for example, the President's initiative on a
senior citizen's discount card. We should turn over every leaf to try
to lower it. But the most expensive drugs there are are drugs that do
not work.
Let us be very clear what this amendment would do to drug safety in
America. This amendment would allow anyone, individuals and import
companies, to import any drug with no FDA inspection for alteration,
misbranding, or strength. Any company in the country, in the world,
could ship any product in a bottle, label it any way they wanted, be
totally fraudulent in their claim, while we sit here and ban the FDA
from doing anything about it. If my colleagues liked the Mexican
strawberries that poisoned our schoolchildren, then they are going to
love the Red Chinese sugar pills labeled amoxicillin that allows the
child's strep throat to become heart disease.
When a drug is prescribed, a doctor or dentist has to know with
absolute certainty that the drug is precisely what he ordered. This
bill will destroy that certainty and undermine the safety of American
patients.
Vote ``no,'' then let us work together on a real effort to try to
reduce the cost of prescription drugs for our senior citizens.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I was just rising to either ask unanimous
consent to strike the last word to get some of my own time on this or
to plead with the chairman to see if we could not even get a few more
minutes on each side. We have more speakers than we had anticipated,
and it is an important issue and lives actually hang in the balance on
it. I wondered if we might take a few additional minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman making a unanimous consent request?
Ms. KAPTUR. I am.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that request?
Ms. KAPTUR. My request is to strike the last word.

[[Page H3884]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Ohio?
Mr. BUYER. I object.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, can I have a point of personal something
or other?
On this issue of enormous consequence our friends do not want to add
a few more minutes to debate? I think that is really unfortunate.
I want to ask the chairman again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla), who I know is a decent man and I respect his opinion, but we
have many people here, so what is wrong with 5 more minutes on either
side?
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a unanimous consent request?
Mr. SANDERS. I am.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that request?
Mr. SANDERS. That the chairman grant us 5 minutes more so people on
both sides can have the opportunity to debate this issue. Five minutes
on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
Mr. BUYER. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, may I know what the time frame is?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. I would urge the other side to go ahead.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, why have all of us from the Committee on
Commerce come up here to debate this issue and are opposed to it?
Because this is exactly what happened. For 2 years we have been working
on this project: reimportation. When it leaves this country and comes
back into this country, we do not know what it is.
This is one post office, where 721 parcels came back in. We cannot
tell what it is, how it got here, how it was made, what it even is made
of. This is the yellow powder we speak of. This is boric acid and
yellow highway paint. They do it to put on these pills which they put
in this blister pack for Poncet. Nothing we can use medically in this
country.
This is about drug safety. It is not priced for senior citizens. All
of us Democrats, most of us Republicans, would like to see lower drug
prices. This is drug safety. For 2 years we have been working on this
issue. Do not limit the FDA's ability to do enforcement when these
drugs like this highway paint are coming in and being put on pills and
we are supposed to take it as a safe drug.
Reject this amendment. If you want to pass meaningful legislation,
pass the Allen bill.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I do agree on one thing with the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). This amendment is important. It is
important because if it passes, people will die, and that is no
exaggeration.
Why would we ever want to permit a system that is one of the best in
the world, like the FDA, which ensures that we have drug safety in our
Nation, why do we want to open it up so we are not able to have that
gold standard that a former colleague talked about? When people see an
FDA-approved drug, they know about the efficacy and safety of that
particular drug.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Customs Service have
testified as recently as June 7th that ``Drugs being imported from
outside the United States pose considerable risk to consumers because
they may be counterfeit, expired, superpotent, subpotent, simply
tainted, or mislabeled.''
American consumers should not have to worry that the drugs they take
may be adulterated, just as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
said, with yellow highway paint, which the FDA has found with imported
drugs. Defeat the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask a lot of other
questions, however, some of them have been covered here on the floor
already.
So, I wish to ask the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have
been hearing about who is against this amendment, but could the
gentleman give me an indication of who is for this? And, also, for the
record, this was 363 to 12 the last time we took a vote on this.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. Some groups
supporting it are Public Citizens Network, the National Catholic Social
Justice Lobby, the National Educational Association, Communication
Workers of America, the Children's Foundation, the Alliance for Retired
Americans, the Gray Panthers, and a number of other organizations. And
I thank the gentlewoman for asking that question.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, all of us, all of us want to see lower
drug prices, and all of us are frustrated by the high price of drugs.
It does no good, though, to import these drugs if we cannot be
guaranteed of their efficacy.
In my hand I have three packages of Viagra, all of them imported. Two
of these packages are counterfeit. All the packages look the same. The
holograms on the back are the same and the blister packs holding the
pills are exactly the same in all three boxes. I am sure that two of
these boxes are cheaper than the third, but I would ask my gentlemen
colleagues if they would rather have lower prices, or which two of
these boxes would they take?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, not because it is
the perfect amendment but because I believe it is a step in the right
direction.
During all this debate, few people, no one really, has asked why are
drugs so much less expensive in other countries. The reason is because
other countries do not allow the pharmaceutical companies to gouge
their citizens, senior citizens or others.
In Canada, in all the rest of the G-7, there are caps on what the
pharmaceutical industry can charge. In those countries the
pharmaceutical industry sells lots of drugs, they make profits, and
they do just fine. Only in America, only in America do we basically
allow them to charge the highest prices in the world to seniors, who
can least afford it.
That is why this is a step in the right direction. I do believe we
need a prescription drug cap here in the United States so that our
seniors are not discriminated against and our seniors no longer pay the
highest prices in the world.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Congress does have an obligation to help Americans who cannot
afford the prescription drugs that they need, and seniors deserve a
voluntary universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We can
all agree on that. But making it easier to bring counterfeit
substandard medicines into the United States is not the way to help
seniors get these medications, not the way to help families.
The Sanders amendment is a step backward. The FDA and the Customs
Service have a huge challenge keeping counterfeit drugs out of this
country. Consumers in New Jersey and California and Kansas can take
prescription medicines today with the certain knowledge that they are
putting safe, tested, clean medicines into their bodies.
It is not just agencies like the Customs Service that oppose this, it
is also patients' groups, like the National Prostate Cancer Coalition,
the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the ALS Foundation. They all
strongly oppose it. It is simply not the way to provide seniors with
affordable prescription drugs. It would undermine confidence that
doctors and patients have in their ability to make informed decisions
about patient care.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H3885]]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. During this debate we have had this photo displayed
of what has been called a foreign drug lab. Several Members here
believe that is a picture of a laboratory in the United States. How
would I inquire as to the validity of that evidence that has been
presented today?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman could ask the Members in control of the
debate time to yield to him to give such an explanation.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So who would I be able to ask that of?
The CHAIRMAN. A Member in control of time for this debate.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Sanders amendment, which
will literally endanger the safety of our constituents.
First, there is no doubt that we must and will act to help seniors
with the high cost of prescription medicines, but this amendment is not
the answer. Secondly, we debated this same issue a year ago. The only
thing that has changed is that we now have confirmation from both the
former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, and her
successor that this amendment could endanger our constituents.
Anyone who thinks the threat is not real, I would refer them to the
recent testimony of the U.S. Customs Service and the recent news
reports that counterfeit drugs are already coming into this country
that pose a serious health threat to our citizens. This amendment would
essentially make that practice legal and allow unscrupulous marketers
to invade our markets and endanger our constituents.
Our Nation, with the FDA, has the world's gold standard for ensuring
the quality and safety of medicines used by consumers here in the
United States and around the globe. Let us not undermine these high
standards for consumer safety.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would once again ask unanimous consent
to ask the chairman now just for 3 minutes on each side of additional
time, because we have many speakers who feel strongly about this; and I
am sure the gentleman does as well.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Objection, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair, I stood up
before to ask for additional time as the ranking member of the
subcommittee and could not get additional time. I wish to personally
speak in favor of the Sanders amendment. Do I understand the procedures
here to disallow me, as ranking member, the highest member of my party
on this committee, from being allowed to speak on behalf of this
amendment? Is there no procedure available to me to use today because
of this unrealistic time limitation?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can seek unanimous consent. The time is
controlled by prior agreement.
Ms. KAPTUR. So could I ask unanimous consent, could I plead with the
chairman of our subcommittee, to give us 2 additional minutes on each
side to fully debate, not even fully debate, to partially debate an
amendment of this consequence that would allow the ranking member to at
least offer an opinion in favor of this amendment?

{time} 1245

The vote last year was 363 to 12 in favor of the Crowley-Sanders
amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair repeat the unanimous
consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is that each side would
have 2 additional minutes for speakers controlled by the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reserving my right to object, I do not
object if the gentlewoman asks unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes to speak.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is that the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 2 additional minutes to speak.
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment.
Again I repeat, last year the vote on this issue passed overwhelmingly
363 to 12 in this House. Indeed the House has spoken. Let no one
confuse what the issues are. First of all, drugs are already being
brought into this country. People from my district go up to Canada and
buy prescription drugs all the time. That is true for people from San
Diego going to Tijuana; or New York to Niagra Canada. In fact, most
drugs sold here are manufactured in Puerto Rico anyway! They are not
even made in the United States, and we require the FDA to inspect those
laboratories. So we are not talking about anything different with this
amendment. We are talking about expanding an existing system that works
and provides the safest drug and food supply in the world.
Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues came up here and said this
amendment poses a threat to consumers. The only threat to consumers is
that our seniors and others cannot afford to buy the drugs that they
need to keep them alive; that is the threat out there! No industry, no
industry in this country should be allowed to keep prescription drugs
away from people to save their lives.
Someone else talked about the effect of this amendment reducing the
gold standard of drug inpsection. In fact with this amendment, we want
to apply the gold standard of inspection more broadly to make more
medications available that are approved by the FDA.
Let me say that we even inspect meat plants and license meat plants
all around the world when they ship products in here. We can certainly
do that more comprehensively for prescription drugs.
Finally, let me end by stating that when we went to conference on
this important item last year, we offered four amendments to deal with
some of the important regulatory questions that were raised by the FDA.
We were defeated on a totally partisan vote each time. I will say to
the Republican Party in this institution, they caused this amendment to
be unworkable. Give us the right with this amendment to fix the system
as we tried last year when we went to conference and our four
amendments were defeated.
Mr. Chairman, we want to provide the safest food and drug supply to
the people of this country. Allow us to do that. Again, support the
Sanders amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what is the remaining time for each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 3 minutes
remaining; and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from the other side of
the aisle about the FDA is the gold standard. It is fool's gold. Guess
what? U.S. drugs are manufactured mostly in Puerto Rico with major
components imported from China and India with no mandatory testing.
None.
This bill would impose mandatory testing, a whole new regime. The EU
has been doing this for 25 years. What is the result, counterfeit drugs
and people dying? No. The result is drugs are much cheaper in the
European Union; and in Britain they are on average 36 percent cheaper,
and there has not been a single incidence of all of these chimaeras
that are raised.
What really happened was the pharmaceutical industry was caught
napping last year. The seniors that I have seen divide their pills in
half, against doctor's orders, and I have seen spouses that have to
choose, one gets drugs and the other does not. We are doing nothing
about that. We are supporting the profits of this industry. If the
other side reverses their vote from last year,

[[Page H3886]]

they will be held accountable by the tens of millions of Americans who
cannot afford their pharmaceutical drugs. This is not about safety, it
is about affordability, and it is about lives.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we only have one remaining speaker, and we
reserve the right to close.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole to
enlarge the time prescribed by the Order of the House depends on
congruent division of the time. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla),
therefore, has 2 additional minutes as a consequence of the 2
additional minutes granted to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not object; but my understanding of
the unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) gave
was to give Ms. Kaptur 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for
both sides.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, this is really an unfortunate
circumstance that we are being forced as citizens of our country to
have to reimport drugs that are manufactured in our country under our
country's supervision in FDA-approved laboratories, but in order to be
able to get affordable prescription medicines to our citizens.
Our citizens are paying 33 to 50 percent higher for the same drugs.
This is no different from some of our agriculture farmers who recognize
the importation of products that are manufactured here but sold
overseas cheaper. It is cheaper to bring it in than it is to pay for it
at the same level in our own country, and we are being put through this
process.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow us to get those safe, FDA-
approved, reviewed and supervised prescription drugs to our seniors
that need it. Our State needs this relief now.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the honest opponents
of this bill are focusing on the trees and, therefore, cannot see the
forest. The forest is that Americans pay exorbitantly high prices for
pharmaceuticals. We subsidize the price of pharmaceuticals everywhere
else in the world.
If we were running this place properly, we would have an honest
debate on a pharmaceutical drug program under Medicare. We are not
going to have that. We would have an honest debate about health
insurance for all Americans. We are not going to have that.
Mr. Chairman, this is the only vehicle that we are permitted. If
Members want to move us closer to honest prices for pharmaceuticals for
senior citizens and everyone else in America, vote for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 30 seconds
remaining; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, is the procedure that the gentleman from
Texas has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), as the chairman
of the subcommittee, has the right to close.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is a shame we have not had more time
for this debate because our constituents do not have time to survive
when they cannot afford prescription drugs because the drug companies
are gouging consumers. Everyone in America knows this. It is time that
this House takes a stand, as it did a year ago, to make sure that
prescription drug prices are kept low. We have the ability to do that
with the Sanders amendment, and we ought to vote to make sure that we
hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable.
Mr. Chairman, it is time that we did that instead of the
pharmaceutical companies reaching in and trying to control votes in
this Congress. It is time we took a stand on behalf of senior citizens
who are suffering because of the high cost of prescription drugs.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield all remaining time to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the former speakers complained about
the scare tactics that have been used in discussions and debates on
this bill. Let me assure Members, they need to be afraid of this
amendment.
My mother, my 82-year-old mother, is a three-time cancer survivor and
needs to be afraid of this amendment. This amendment effectively
repeals an important consumer protection law designed to protect my
mother and other consumers from bad drugs.
Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created not to protect pharmaceutical
companies, whether they are here in the United States or foreign
countries. The FDA was created to protect consumers like myself, my
mother and everybody's mother from bad, illegal, counterfeit, dangerous
drugs.
If Members do not believe there are people preparing those kinds of
drugs and trying to send them to Members' mothers today, be afraid.
Let me read from testimony before the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing. This is
about a U.S. Customs effort in Thailand called Operation Chokepoint.
What they discovered in this kitchen cooking up drugs for America was
18.5 kilograms of powder steroids and Viagra. The processing took place
on the counter of a filthy, vermin-infested kitchen and on the floor of
a spare bedroom of the house. The tools and scales were never cleaned,
and used for both steroids and Viagra. The British national who was
running this operation had just been released from the hospital for
hepatitis treatment, was still under medication, was processing and
packaging these drugs with the assistance of a Thai female prostitute.
Mr. Chairman, the picture complained about is from Colombia. This is
one of the kitchens in Colombia that is cooking up drugs for Members'
mothers and mine, and importing them into the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created and this important consumer
protection law was created to protect our seniors and loved ones from
this stuff. This amendment removes that protection.
I want to ask Members, in the interest of cheaper tires, are Members
willing to repeal NHTSA, our Highway Safety Commission? Are Members
willing to take away the consumer protections we have built around the
law that says people cannot sell us tires that will blow up and flip
our trucks over? In the interest of cheaper energy, are Members ready
to repeal the EPA so anyone can do anything they want in this country
to the environment?
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of cheaper toys and sleepwear, are
Members ready to repeal the Consumer Products Safety Commission so our
kids can have cheaper toys and sleepwear, but they might burn to death
at night because sleepwear is flammable and nobody is looking after
them?
Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created to protect us, not the companies;
to protect my mom and other moms. When we passed this ban on
reimportation, we did something very important. We said to our
Secretary, unless we can satisfy that the drugs coming into this
country are going to be safe, they are not going to kill my mother,
they are not coming from these drug kitchens in Colombia and Thailand,
unless the Secretary can satisfy us, keep the ban.
Do Members know what the Secretary said in the last administration?
``I cannot tell you that we can satisfy you that without FDA approval
these drugs are safe.''
Yes, we all want cheaper drugs for our mothers and fathers; and yes,
we are working on bills to do that. The administration is working on a
project to provide discount cards to all seniors. Yes, we ought to be
concerned about the high cost of those drugs, but are we going to trade
drug safety for drug prices? Are we going to put everybody at risk for
the sake of a cheaper drug?

[[Page H3887]]

I suggest to Members this is the wrong remedy for the problem. We can
all agree that is a problem. We can all agree that there is something
wrong about the way that drugs are priced in America, and we are
working on something in the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations. We can all agree that the Medicare system ought to make
drugs more affordable; and the copayment is too high when seniors need
treatment for cancer therapy.

{time} 1300

But this is a wrong remedy. This lets these operations become legal.
It takes away the enforcement arm of the Government designed to protect
our seniors from this kind of an operation and says from now on, This
is legal, this is okay. You can cook it up in a kitchen in Colombia,
and you can cook it up in a kitchen in Thailand, using whatever systems
you want, whatever unsanitary conditions you want; and you can ship it
into America because we think cheaper drugs are so important, we do not
care how unsafe they are.
Mr. Chairman, this Sanders amendment is dangerous. It needs to be
defeated.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Vermont, Mr.
Sanders.
In 1988, Congress passed legislation that banned the reimportation of
prescription drugs because it recognized that there was a significant
risk to the American people associated with counterfeit, adulterated or
sub-potent medication.
In fact, recognizing the importance of quality prescription drugs,
Congress required not only that all domestic distribution centers be
licensed, but also that the FDA develop a stringent set of guidelines
to regulate domestic prescription drugs.
These guidelines called for detailed record-keeping, including
guidelines which outlined very specific temperature and humidity
control parameters.
The Sanders Amendment clearly contradicts the reasoning behind these
efforts and would instead allow unrestricted reimportation of
prescription drugs.
Moreover, the Sanders Amendment would delete the provision which
Congress passed last year directing the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to demonstrate that any cost-savings derived from reimported
drugs be passed to the American consumer.
Last December, then-HHS Secretary Donna Shalala found she could not
demonstrate that the reimportation law would not jeopardize patient
safety, nor could she demonstrate that savings would be passed on to
consumers.
Moreover, Mr. Sanders' amendment would likely lead to an increase in
the flow of counterfeit drugs into the U.S., which is already a growing
problem the Government cannot control.
At a June 7, 2001 hearing, Ms. Elizabeth Durant, Executive Director
of Trade Programs at the U.S. Customs Service, testified that ``perhaps
as much as 90 percent of the pharmaceuticals that enter the U.S. via
the mail do so in a manner that violates FDA and/or DEA requirements. .
. . To offer an example, one seizure included a 3,000-tab shipment of a
counterfeit drug with an expiration date of 1980. . . . We have
counterfeit drugs. We have gray-market drugs. We have prohibited drugs
and we have unapproved drugs. The whole gamut of illegal substances
pass through our mail facility at Dulles. And this is a situation that
is pretty much replicated around the country.''
While I am concerned about the rising cost of pharmaceuticals in the
U.S., I am more concerned that Mr. Sanders' amendment would compromise
the health and safety of millions of Americans who count on the quality
and purity of pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA to treat their
illnesses. What we cannot afford to do is knowingly expose American
consumers to drugs and pharmaceuticals that may jeopardize their
health, and yet that is precisely what the Sanders amendment would do.
Again, I urge my colleagues to put the welfare of Americans first and
vote against the Sanders amendment.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro prescription drug reimportation amendment to
the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This amendment will lay the
groundwork for lowering the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. by
30-50%.
This amendment will allow prescription drug distributors and
pharmacists to purchase FDA-approved prescription drugs from anywhere
in the world at competitive and reasonable prices.
It is a shame that millions of Americans are not able to afford the
outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. Their
quality of life continues to deteriorate while we continue to limit
their access to basic health necessities.
Citizens of the United States pay the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs. Many of our constituents will travel to Mexico or
Canada to buy the same drugs for a lesser value. In my district in
California, the average prices that senior citizens must pay are 97%
higher than the prices that Canadian consumers pay and 96% higher than
the prices that Mexican consumers pay.
For every $1 spent in the United States for prescription drugs, those
same drugs are purchased in Switzerland for .65, the United Kingdom for
.64, France for .51, and Italy for .49.
Why should patients have to continually compromise their health while
being forced to decide which prescription drugs to buy and which drugs
not to take because they cannot afford to pay for all of them. These
patients cannot afford to pay such burdensome costs.
These patients are forced to gamble with their health when they
cannot afford to pay for the drugs needed to treat their conditions.
Every day, these patients have to live with the fear of having to
encounter major medial problems because they were denied access to
prescription drugs they could not afford to pay out of their pocket.
Often times, these individuals must choose between buying food or
medicine. With outrageously high energy costs in California right now,
some seniors and other Californians have to choose between paying their
electric bill or their drug bills. This is wrong!
All Americans should be entitled to medical treatment at affordable
prices. The Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro amendment will allow these patients
to buy the prescription drugs needed to lead a healthy and productive
life.
This amendment will break the monopoly the pharmaceutical industry
now has over reimportation.
Let's stop gambling with the lives of our patients and support this
reimportation amendment in order to cut these outrageous prescription
drug prices. Americans deserve the right to lead healthy lives by
purchasing prescription drugs at reasonable and competitive prices.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Vermont. As I am sure I need not remind my
colleagues, many Americans are concerned about the high prices of
prescription drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs particularly
effect low-income senior citizens since many seniors have a greater
than-average need for prescription drugs. One of the reasons
prescription drug prices are high is because of government policies
which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the
prescription drug market. One of the most egregious of those policies
are those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. If
members of Congress are serious about lowering prescription drug prices
they should support this amendment.
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often
hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive
quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these
constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to
purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal
government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my
constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their
choice?
Opponents of this amendment have been waging a hysterical campaign to
convince members that this amendment will result in consumers
purchasing unsafe products. I dispute this claim for several reasons.
Unlike the opponents of this amendment I do not believe that consumers
will purchase an inferior pharmaceutical simply to save money. Instead,
consumers will carefully shop to make sure they are receiving the
highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. In fact, the
experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to
purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of
ensuring they only purchase safe products without interference from Big
Brother.
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned
about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of
powerful companies, they would consider how our current policies
endanger safety by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs.
Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less than the proper amount
of a prescription medicine in order to save money or forgo other
necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to show they are serious about
lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the
people to know what is in their best interest by voting for the Sanders
amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in strong support of the Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro/Paul/
Rohrabacher amendment.

[[Page H3888]]

This language offered today is the same as language I offered last
year.
We again offer this amendment as a first start to provoke a
discussion and get real reimportation legislation enacted into law.
This is the only way Democrats and Independents can get heard on this
issue--the GOP controlled House authorizing committees are not doing
their jobs.
All we have seen to date was a Commerce Committee hearing held
earlier this month on the horrors of reimportation--and the arguments
from that hearing have hardened my resolve in supporting reimportation.
Why?
In part because of the comments from that hearing, such as Chairman
Tauzin's opening statement where he remarked on June 7, 2001:

The problem of counterfeit drugs is not just a phenomenon
of the developing world. Our lucrative market and ineffective
import controls are increasingly making the United States an
attractive target for drug counterfeiters and diverters. Last
month, three counterfeit prescription drugs were found in the
shelves of pharmacies of several states. It is not known
whether these fake drugs were made in the United States or
overseas. But such a cluster of counterfeits has not been
seen for years in this country.

Yes, in fact, counterfeit drugs are making it onto our shores and the
legislation that was enacted to stop it--the Prescription Drug
Marketing Act (PDMA) enacted in 1987, which includes section 801(d)(1)
that we are striking funding for today, has not been successful in
protecting consumers.
It has been tremendously successful in protecting drug company
profits though.
We, as Democrats, have been trying legislative remedy after
legislative remedy to address the spiraling costs of medications--and
each time the leaders of this Congress have rebuffed us.
The GOP passed a fake prescription drug benefit last Congress--so
weak that 178 of their members later backed my amendment to
Agricultural Appropriations last year making reimportation a better
alternative to lowering drug prices then their Party Plan.
This year, Congress expressed a collective round of laughter at the
Drug proposal advanced by this White House--representing one of the
greatest feats of bi-partisanship in recent memory.
I recognize the safety concerns advanced by Commerce Chairman Tauzin
and Ranking Member Dingell are legitimate and I greatly respect their
diligence on this issue and their hard working in protecting American
consumers--their motives cannot be questioned here.
But the current laws are not working, as we all readily admit.
Something new must be done.
We cannot protect people from medications by not allowing them to
have any access to affordable drugs at all--and unfortunately that is
more and more the case throughout the U.S.A.
I remember the thoughts of a local pharmacists who told me that
American seniors pay the highest drug prices on Earth.
Some Members will oppose this amendment on fair grounds and for valid
reasons--but we offer it as a starting point for discussion to get
Congress to act and act this year to lower drug prices for Americans--
especially our seniors.
Let me put this in perspective, I have a constituent in Long Island
City, NY who must purchase 100 capsules of Prilosec every three months
for his wife. He pays almost $400 for these drugs.
I have this letter from a gentleman who writes ``Isn't that an
outrageous price for a medication my wife will have to take on a
regular basis''.
Yes it is, sir.
Especially, in light of the fact that this same drug that costs $400
in Queens New York, would have cost him $107 in Mexico and $184 in
Canada.
Price gouging is wrong and needs to be stopped.
Price Gouging medications is illegal in Canada and Mexico, and--
surprise--their drug prices are half the cost of what they are in the
U.S.--even for the same drugs, with the same FDA-approved label.
This amendment this year will allow for reimportation of FDA-approved
drugs and will serve as an important place marker for more
comprehensive reimportation language to be included by the
Democratically-controlled Senate.
Americans are turning more and more to giant super stores for their
consumer needs--because they can get great bargains at places like
WalMart--but they have no such large wholesaler to purchase their
medications.
Something that is not a luxury but a necessity.
What upsets me most is that the drug companies get away with it--they
give super discounts to seniors in every other country in the world,
because they know those governments would never allow for price gouging
of their elderly.
But knowing full well they can commit gouging in the U.S.--they mark
up their products well beyond what any reasonable senior can afford.
This price gouging must stop.
We can no longer, in good conscience, as a nation allow our seniors
to ration their medications, or have to choose between paying their
rent and purchasing their drugs.
Representative Sanders and I are offering this reimportation
amendment as the first of a three pronged approach to helping America's
seniors afford their medications.
Besides reimportation, we argue for the passage of the Prescription
Drug Fairness for Seniors Act by Congressman Tom Allen of Maine.
And I hope that all of the sponsors of this amendment will join me in
this fight--the goals are the same here--lowering drug prices and
protecting American seniors.
This legislation would automatically lower the drug prices paid by
American seniors by an average of 40% overnight at negligible cost to
the Government by mandating that the drug manufacturers sell drugs to
seniors at the same price they sell them for in the other six major
industrialized nations.
These two approaches lead us to our final and long term goal--that of
a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
We cannot have millions of Americans go without their medications.
We need to pass real reimportation language this year--and begin to
lower the skyrocketing costs of drugs for Americans.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, once again I find it necessary to oppose
amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill designed to gut the
protection the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) affords all
Americans. Once again we find ourselves debating ill-conceived efforts
to convince our people, particularly the elderly, that a panacea for
high drug prices can be found in re-imports of American manufactured
prescription drugs.
Make no mistake--despite the good intentions of their proponents,
nothing in these amendments will lower drug prices one dime for
consumers. Nothing in these amendments will benefit any consumer,
directly or indirectly. Instead, consumers will be put at risk, because
drug re-importation would be a welcome mat for crooks and frauds.
Foreign wholesalers were cut out of the drug distribution system in
1987 because of the flood of contaminated, counterfeit, and mislabeled
products. These shady characters have taken advantage of the
appropriate public outrage over drug prices to encourage America to
once again open its borders to these dangerous drugs.
Proponents of the amendments argue that if the drugs are made in
America they must be safe. They are wrong. Our Committee's
investigation in the middle 1980's showed that American packaging and
labeling was duplicated perfectly by counterfeiters entering their
product as re-imports. Unfortunately, they had not duplicated the FDA
vigilance that Americans believe is attached to such packaging.
Counterfeit after counterfeit was imported into the U.S. as ``American
Goods Returned'' before the PDMA put an end to it. Ask the women who
took the two million counterfeit birth control pills--in packaging that
duplicated Searle's--just how good the crooks are at graphic design.
The cycles, the boxes they came in, and the instructions that
accompanied the pills were knocked off perfectly in Spain and in
Guatemala. The Spanish product had so much excess hormone that it
caused excessive bleeding. The Guatemalan product contained no active
ingredient so it went undetected, except, of course, for the unwanted
pregnancies that resulted.
I could go on with many more examples such as the perfectly packaged
Naprosyn from Mexico that contained aspirin as the only active
ingredient. That must have come as a shock (or worse) to those
hypersensitive to aspirin. Even the non-counterfeit products were often
so poorly stored that safety was frequently compromised.
Did these counterfeiters and diverters produce any savings to the
American consumer? We looked in depth at this $500 million a year
market and found no evidence that consumers saved so much as a penny.
No compensation was provided to unsuspecting consumers for all the
risks they unknowingly assumed.
We should be able to find a way to address effectively the problem of
high priced drugs and to protect consumers from risky products. The
amendments offered today do neither, and should be rejected.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in
support of the Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro amendment.
Prescription drug costs are a life and death issue for thousands of
Americans. Making these life saving and health sustaining drugs
affordable for our citizens, and especially our seniors, is simply the
right thing to do.

[[Page H3889]]

Just look at the cost of prescription drugs in my district. Last
year, I conducted three different studies in New York City that showed
rampant price discrimination against uninsured seniors by
pharmaceutical companies. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, New Yorkers are
being skewered by inflated drug prices.
For instance, Tamoxifen--which is sold under the brand name
Nolvadex--is the most frequently prescribed breast cancer drug in this
nation. It is used by thousands of women across this state and across
the country to treat early and advanced breast cancer. In fact, in
1998, total sales of Tamoxifen were over $520 million.
Women in my district who need Tamoxifen must pay ten times what
seniors in other countries pay. According to the study I conducted, a
one month supply of Tamoxifen costs only nine dollars in Canada--yet it
costs over one-hundred dollars in my district. That means that, over
the course of a year, a woman in my district will pay roughly twelve-
hundred dollars more than women in Canada.
That's a price differential of over one-thousand percent. This is a
life-saving drug that thousands of women need to survive. Many women in
New York are forced to dilute prescriptions they need to fight breast
cancer--forced to cut their pills in half or in thirds--in order to get
by financially. No doctor recommends this. No person deserves this.
All eight of the drugs I studied cost at least forty percent more in
my district than they do abroad. The average price differential with
Canada was 112 percent, and with Mexico it was 108 percent.
Prilosec, an ulcer medication and the U.S.'s top prescription drug in
dollar sales in 1998, cost $49.80 for a one month supply in Canada, but
cost $121.83 for a one month supply in my Congressional District,
that's a 145% price differential.
Prescription drugs costs are too high for America's families and are
now the largest out-of-pocket health care expense for America's
seniors.
Congress recognized this crisis last year when both the House and
Senate passed a drug reimportation bill by wide margins.
Once passed, however, significant flaws were detected in the details
of the bill that jeopardized our ability to ensure lower prices and
safe products for U.S. consumers through the new policy.
The bill before us today tries to get us back on track by more
explicitly preserving the Food and Drug Administration's authority to
ensure the safety and efficacy of a system to reimport prescription
drugs.
I urge passage of this reimportation amendment which would allow U.S.
pharmacists and prescription drug distributors to purchase and sell
locally FDA-approved medicines purchased from abroad. This measure
should lower the price of prescription drugs, perhaps as much as 50%.
I strongly support adoption of the Sanders/Crowley/DeLauro amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives is
faced with an amendment, offered by Representative Sanders of Vermont,
which attempts to address the problem of high drug prices in the United
States. Seniors in the United States pay the highest prices in the
industrialized world for prescription medicines and are often the
victims of discriminatory pricing. This amendment, however, seriously
undermines the current system that protects U.S. consumers from
reimporting potentially tainted drugs from abroad and this is why I
play to vote against this measure. We will likely consider additional
amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill today that attempt to
accomplish similar goals, but unless they address the need for strong
consumer protections, I also plan to vote against these amendments.
Prescription drugs are an increasingly vital part of health care and
are the fastest growing component of health care expenditures. Spending
on prescription drugs is expected to continue to rise. Seniors, who
comprise only 13% of the total population, account for more than a
third of the annual expenditure on prescription drugs. The average
senior uses 18 prescriptions a year and these vital prescriptions are
absolutely essential to their quality of life. The rising costs of
pharmaceuticals, combined with the increasing reliance on drugs for
medical treatments, have created a serious threat to the financial
security of a particularly vulnerable population, seniors who are on
fixed incomes.
We must provide relief to seniors in the United States. My concern
though is that this amendment would eliminate our ability to ensure the
integrity of drug products and could put American consumers, especially
our seniors, in serious jeopardy. Counterfeit medicines have already
infiltrated the U.S. market and we must make sure that any
reimportation proposal addresses consumer safety and the need for
thorough drug inspections. It does seniors no good to allow the
importation of less costly prescription drugs if we cannot also ensure
their safety and efficacy.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma:
Insert before the short title the following new section:
Sec. ____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the total amount provided in title II
under the heading ``watershed and flood prevention
operations'' (to be used to carry out section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012), as added by section 313 of Public Law 106-472 (114
Stat. 2077)), and none of the funds made available in this
Act may be used to pay the salaries of personnel of the
Department of Agriculture who carry out the programs
authorized by section 524(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1524) in excess of a total of $3,600,000 for
all such programs for fiscal year 2002, by $5,400,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The amendment that I am offering today will provide $3 million to be
used for the rehabilitation of aging watershed dams. Public Law 106-472
authorizes USDA to assist local communities with rehabilitation of
their aging flood-control dams constructed with USDA assistance. The
authorizing legislation, which I authored, received widespread
bipartisan support in both the Committee on Agriculture and on the
House floor.
Since the authorizing legislation was signed into law, NRCS has been
flooded with requests from communities for assistance on rehabilitation
for their aging dams. As of March of this year, 434 communities have
requested rehabilitation assistance on more than 1,400 dams in 35
States. The cost to rehabilitate these dams is estimated to be in
excess of $500 million.
In fact, nearly 10,500 small watershed dams have been built in the
United States since 1944. Many of these dams, which were built and
designed with a 50-year life span, will reach their life expectancy
over the next few years.
These watershed projects are extremely important to our communities.
They provide flood control, municipal water supply, recreation, soil
erosion control, water quality improvement, wetland development, and
wildlife habitat enhancement on more than 130 million acres in this
Nation. These dams benefit thousands of people's lives every day.
In fact, the small watershed program has proven to be one of our
Nation's most successful public-private partnerships. The program
represents an $8.5 billion Federal investment and an estimated $6
billion local investment in the infrastructure of this Nation. These
completed small watershed projects have provided $2.20 in benefits for
every $1 of cost. Very few Government projects can make that claim.
We must continue to build on this program that our predecessors
started 50 years ago. I hope that my colleagues will support this very
important amendment to begin the process of rehabilitating these dams
before we have a tragic dam failure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition notwithstanding my support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H3890]]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
friend the gentleman from Oklahoma. I want to commend him for the work
that he and his staff have put into the amendment. This amendment makes
additional funds available to the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations account specifically for the small watershed rehabilitation
program that passed this House last year. This is a good amendment, and
I urge all Members to support the amendment.
In fact, I think the amendment is so good that I have not heard one
word of opposition from anyone on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments No. 17 and 18 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
Insert before the short title at the end the following new
section:
Sec. ____. Of the amount for the Department of Agriculture
provided under the heading ``Agricultural Research Service''-
``salaries and expenses'' in title I, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall provide $950,000, the same amount as was
provided for fiscal year 2001, for the Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center to maintain competitiveness and support the
expansion of new crops and products.
____

Amendment No. 18 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
Insert before the short title at the end the following new
section:

Sec. ____. Of the amount for the Department of Agriculture
provided under the heading ``Agricultural Research Service''-
``salaries and expenses'' in title I, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall provide $1,603,000, the same amount as was
provided for fiscal year 2001, for tropical aquaculture
research for the Oceanic Institute of Hawaii for continuation
of the comprehensive research program focused on feeds,
nutrition, and global competitiveness of the United States
aquaculture industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Both of these amendments go to the Agricultural Research Service. One
has to do with the earmarking of $950,000 for the Hawaii Agricultural
Research Center. The other is an earmark of $1,603,000 for the Oceanic
Institute. Both of these programs are long existing and have been
funded at this level in the past fiscal year. Both of these programs,
the Oceanic Institute and the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center, are
included in the President's budget.
I think that the importance of these two amendments is to recognize
and to herald the tremendous contributions that these two centers have
made, not only to Hawaii as a single State but to the entire United
States and perhaps even globally with reference to the Oceanic
Institute research.
The Hawaii Agricultural Research Center provides vital services to
Hawaii's farmers, and particularly now with the loss of our sugar
industry with only two plantations remaining, the existence of this
center and its support is even more vital as the State struggles to
find additional crops to grow on the vast acreages that are being
fallowed as a result of the closure of the agricultural industry. We do
have tremendous potential in coffee, tropical fruits, vegetables,
macadamia nuts, and many other industries.
In respect to the Oceanic Institute, this program assists the
expansion of aquaculture and feed manufacturing sectors and to develop
new products, processes and markets for U.S. grains. The Oceanic
Institute in Hawaii manages the program and is a world leader in feeds
and nutrition technology with extensive experience in a variety of
marine finfish.
Some of the program's research highlights in the past year have
included the development of new feed formulations that enabled the
production of market-size shrimp in only 8 weeks. The program has
recently assumed a critical role in the development of a new technology
package that offers the United States substantial worldwide competitive
advantage in the domestic farming of marine shrimp.
It is because of the importance of both of these research centers
that I rise today to ask this House to include specific designation of
these two programs in allocation of funding for the overall
Agricultural Research Service.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas insist on his point of
order?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
gentlewoman is going to withdraw her amendments, but we are willing to
work with the gentlewoman as we move toward conference on this issue. I
know it is a very important issue to her.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman from Texas. It is very
important that report language include these two projects. I am
heartened to hear that the gentleman will work towards this effort when
the matter goes to conference.
With that assurance, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw both my amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the two amendments are withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7____. None of the amounts made available in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration may be used under
section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
prevent an individual who is not in the business of importing
prescription drugs within the meaning of section 801(g) of
such Act from importing a prescription drug that (1) appears
to be FDA-approved; (2) does not appear to be a narcotic
drug; and (3) appears to be manufactured, prepared,
propagated, compounded, or processed in an establishment
registered pursuant to section 510 of such Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is going to be very similar to the debate
we had just a few minutes ago concerning the price of prescription
drugs. I supported the Sanders amendment even though it was a bit
broader than the amendment that I offer. I hope Members will take a few
minutes to at least read the amendment that I am offering. Essentially
what I am saying is, let us not stop law-abiding citizens from
importing drugs from G-8 countries for personal use. The issue again is
price. If Members do nothing else, please pay attention to this chart.
Because at the end of the day, sooner or later we are all going to have
to try at least to explain this, and there is no explanation.
Americans, it is a fact, it is a dirty little secret in three
different ways, we are paying all the research cost for all the other
countries in the world, and we are doing it in three ways: first of all
in the prices that we pay for prescription drugs, as Members can see,
anywhere from 30 to 70 to 80 percent more than other countries in
Europe; secondly, we are paying for the research in the money that we
put into the NIH and some of the other science programs here in the
United States. It amounts to almost $14 billion a year

[[Page H3891]]

that the taxpayers are subsidizing research; and, finally, we subsidize
the research through the Tax Code. When the pharmaceutical industry
says, well, we are spending billions of dollars on research, that is
true. The last year that we have numbers for, they spent about $12
billion on research. But do understand they pay hefty taxes, and as a
result they can write off all of that research and in some cases they
even qualify for research and development tax credits. So the real net
cost to the pharmaceutical industry is far lower than most people say.
What we are saying in this amendment is the game has to stop. We have
been subsidizing Europe for a long time. It is time for us to stop
subsidizing the starving Swiss.
My amendment is very simple. It simply says that an individual who is
not in the business of reimporting drugs shall have the right to bring
those drugs in either on their person or by mail from any of the G-8
countries. This does not even include Mexico.
We heard this big safety issue. We are going to talk a little bit
about that. The truth of the matter is most of the safety issues that
were talked about in the previous amendment exist today. We are not
changing anything. We are not going to legalize illegal drugs. We are
not going to tell people that they can bring in adulterated drugs. We
are talking about law-abiding citizens that have a legal prescription
that are bringing in FDA-approved drugs made in FDA-approved
facilities.
We have a problem right now, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of
contamination on all of the food and produce we bring in. Yet we do not
hear this ballyhoo because there is not a company out there, there is
not an industry out there like the pharmaceutical industry that stands
to make billions of dollars.
Make no mistake, at the end of this debate, this is about money. I
believe my simple little amendment that simply opens the door for
personal importation could at the end of the day save American
consumers upwards of $30 billion. Now, if Members wonder why
individuals and groups have been spending millions of dollars over the
last couple of weeks, it is about money.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, once again we have an effort here to solve one problem
by creating another, and in fact it could create a series of additional
problems. Let me just mention once again a few of the facts that have
been stated clearly by the Food and Drug Administration. This presents
a clear danger, a potential danger, a serious threat to consumers who
could use drugs that are dangerous, that have not been stored under
proper conditions, have not been manufactured properly, do not conform
to the standards of drug manufacturing in our country. This is simply
something that, as we have just heard in the debate in the last half-
hour or so, would not be in the best interest of consumers.
We are all in agreement here on both sides of the political aisle
that we want to do something about the high cost of drugs in this
country, but we want to do it the right way and not add language on an
appropriations bill that is not supported by anyone who has been
working on this issue in a very serious and sincere way on the
authorizing committee for many months now.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and would urge its
defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1315

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just bring to the attention of the body that
last year a much broader amendment than the one that I am offering,
that would have had blanket reimportation, passed this House by a vote
of 363-to-12. So we are talking about a very targeted amendment to
essentially reinforce what the Congress said last year on a bill that
passed the House overwhelmingly, passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and
was signed by the President. So we are not opening new ground.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for once again bringing up a good,
commonsense amendment to help seniors throughout this country, seniors
in my district. My district in Florida, the median age is 47. My
district has more Medicare recipients than any other district in the
Nation, save one.
The seniors in my district worked hard their entire life and do not
expect a free lunch from government. However, what I do hear from my
seniors is the frustration about the disparity of prices here in the
United States and overseas. I have hardworking and informed seniors who
recognize that their heart medicine is 60 percent cheaper in Canada
than in Florida. They do not know, and I cannot explain, why United
States seniors, in the age of free trade and NAFTA, cannot take
advantage of lower prices for products in another country.
Mr. Chairman, I am a free trader. I believe bringing the elements of
free trade will solve many issues in America, whether it is the
outrageous costs to consumers of the anti-free trade sugar program or
whether it is a difference for seniors in drug prices across our
border. Americans are free to buy pork chops, fruit, and other food
from across the border. Why can we not do the same with FDA-approved
drugs?
The amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is
carefully drafted to concentrate on personal use of FDA-approved
products made in FDA-approved facilities. It allows Americans to have
greater access to cheaper drugs. It is a commonsense measure that
deserves everyone's support.
I fully recognize that this amendment alone will not solve the
problem of high drug prices, and I oppose price controls on
prescription drugs or other products. I have no interest in bashing the
pharmaceutical industry because I recognize how important they are,
especially for the future production of new drugs. However, I believe
that this bill will introduce an additional source of needed supply to
help lower prices. It is something that should be a starting point to
allow the free market to work to the benefit of all seniors, and I urge
a yes vote.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, it is with great respect that I rise in
opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). I did support this last year. But since that
time, as a Member of the Committee on Commerce, we have held numerous
hearings on the safety of drugs and the possibility of reimporting
these drugs; and I have seen very direct evidence that has caused my
concern to change enough to oppose that amendment this year.
We have seen films of laboratories overseas that produce counterfeit
drugs. We know that drugs are tampered with overseas. The effectiveness
of it is sometimes wasted because of age. The FDA has no way to protect
our American citizens from this type of action; and my concern is when
it is all said and done, when somebody is actually hurt because of this
or someone actually dies because the medicine is paint and not really
medicine, what are we going to do about it? What is that consumer going
to do? Who is that consumer going to seek redress from?
Surely they cannot expect the real drug company to stand up and stand
behind their product. How are they going to get to Europe and who are
they going to sue there? How are they going to find these people to be
adequately and fairly compensated for these injuries and deaths that
are surely going to come into this?
Because of this, I do have concern, even though as I said before I
voted for this last year, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment this year.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gutknecht
amendment. Let me say as one of the Members of the subcommittee who
tried to shepherd through last year's reimportation bill, I find it
incredulous that every single person who has spoken today against the
Sanders amendment or the Gutknecht amendment voted for both of them
last time.
Now, of course, there was not a recorded vote on the amendment of the

[[Page H3892]]

gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) but there was the amendment of
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), or rather the amendment of
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which was identical to the
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and every person
who was in favor of it is opposed at this time and that is interesting,
because I understand PHRMA, the trade association for the
pharmaceutical companies, has spent millions of dollars this week
advertising against this.
Needless to say, this is a very critical issue. I have constituents
who have to go to Canada to get drugs for their children, one of whom
has a very severe form of epilepsy. This woman is a single mom and not
able to afford to buy this drug in the United States because in Canada,
of course, it is only a third of what it costs here in the United
States.
The Gutknecht amendment simply allows the reimportation of American-
manufactured drugs, in approved, safe FDA facilities, to be brought
back here without punishment. I think that it is very important in a
nonelection year to be in favor of lower prescription drug costs.
I might also add that safety really is not an issue with regard to
the Gutknecht amendment. And it preserves all of the FDA's legal duty
to approve all imports. And under the current law, FDA's mandate is to
stop drugs that appear to be unapproved; and nothing in the Gutknecht
amendment changes that. So I would certainly urge all of those people
who supported this and other bills last year to vote for it again this
year.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the Hatch-Waxman
Act.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gutknecht
amendment. I am opposed to it because the amendment is so vaguely
drafted it can be interpreted as either ineffective or dangerous, but
under no reading is it worth doing. I strongly agree with all of those
who have argued that pharmaceutical prices are too high, and that drug
companies discriminate against U.S. citizens in their pricing policies.
I would urge the Committee on Commerce to take up legislation to right
this wrong, but the Gutknecht amendment does not fix the problem.
My reading of the amendment is that a drug must be FDA approved to be
allowed to be imported under this amendment. Since under the law a drug
cannot be FDA approved unless it is accompanied by appropriate labeling
and since virtually no foreign drug will have this labeling, I believe
that few, if any, drugs will be allowed to be imported under this
amendment.
There is a different reading of the amendment that it would allow
importation if the basic chemical substance has been approved by the
FDA. If this is the case, the amendment is dangerous because it would
allow drugs to be brought in without allowing FDA to ensure that they
are not adulterated not misbranded and are indeed the right dosages and
strengths. Moreover, all the consumer labeling that we have worked so
hard to assure will be missing.
Under this reading, once FDA approves a drug in theory it may not
ensure that it is safe and effective in practice. So that is the
choice. Is the amendment ineffective or bad? Either way, I oppose it
and urge all of my colleagues to join me in asking that the House
investigate the high cost of prescription drugs and the price
discrimination that is practiced against Americans.
This amendment, while many see good in it, I see no redeeming value
in it because it will either be ineffective or dangerous, and I urge
opposition to it.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, on this amendment, with all due respect to the author
of the amendment, it is a poorly drafted amendment. What it says is the
FDA has to approve drugs if they appear to be FDA-approved drugs and do
not appear to be a controlled substance and appears to be manufactured
or processed in an establishment registered pursuant to section 501.
Well, look at these drugs we found in our investigation. Again,
energy and commerce has done this investigation. This is Hong Kong,
1999, here is the counterfeit. Here is the genuine. It appears to be
the same, even though they are not. Here is one from 1986, Great
Britain. This is Zantac. Again, there is a counterfeit; and there is a
genuine. Everything appears to be the same all the way down to the
blister pack, all the writing, everything on here.
The Gutknecht amendment says this ``all appears.'' I do not think we
want ``to appear'' with the health and safety of our people. Where is
the safety net for our senior citizens underneath this amendment? We
cannot allow reimportation if it ``appears'' okay.
The FDA, the Customs do not have the resources to open up every one
of these and make sure it is the real thing. We have had example after
example given here under the Sanders amendment and now the Gutknecht
amendment. Do not allow this amendment to go through because it appears
that the senior citizen is going to be helped out, or the single
mother, or whoever it may be. They cannot be distinguished.
To run the tests are $6,000 to $8,000 per test to determine if it is
the genuine thing. There are letters in the offices of my colleagues
from the U.S. Department of Justice. There are letters in the offices
of my colleagues from the FDA asking us not to approve the Gutknecht
amendment, not to approve the Sanders amendment; and I would submit
both of these letters for the Record as they are both the FDA and the
Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration opposition to
these amendments.

Department of Justice,

Drug Enforcement Administration,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2001.
Hon. W.J. Tauzin, Chairman,
Hon. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Dingell: Thank you for
asking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to comment
on two certain proposed amendments to H.R. 2330. In
furtherance of the efforts of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, the DEA is pleased to address the importation of
drugs in the United States and submits the following comments
on the proposed amendments. These proposed amendments would
prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from using
any of its funds received under the Agriculture
Appropriations Act to enforce certain provisions of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that pertain to
the importation of prescription drugs. We oppose both of
these proposed amendments because they would hinder the
ability of federal law enforcement officials to ensure that
drugs are imported into the United States in compliance with
long-standing federal laws designed to protect the public
health and safety.
One of the proposed amendments would prohibit the FDA from
using any of its appropriated funds to prevent a person ``who
is not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' from
importing from certain specified countries ``FDA-approved''
prescription drugs that are not controlled substances. This
proposal would be in conflict with the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA), which is DEA's governing statute. The basic
foundation of the CSA is the ``closed'' system of
distribution of controlled substances, under which all
persons in the legitimate distribution chain (manufacturers,
wholesalers, and retailers) must be registered with DEA and
maintain strict accounting for all transactions. This
regulatory scheme, administered by DEA, is designed to
prevent diversion of controlled substances into illicit
channels. However, DEA can maintain no control over the
distribution chain and prevent diversion where American
consumers purchase their drugs abroad. Somewhat similarly,
the law that the FDA administers (the FDCA), cannot be
effectuated where American consumers purchase their drugs
abroad. Among the ways that the FDCA protects the American
public is by requiring good manufacturing practices,
proper labeling, and safe handling to prevent
adulteration. There is no way to ensure such protections
to American consumers if they are allowed to purchase
drugs from foreign sellers without FDA oversight.
We recognize that the proposed amendment states that it
does not apply to controlled substances. However, despite
this wording, the proposed amendment would provide a
potential loophole that could be exploited by traffickers in
controlled substances. Every day, prescription drugs,
including controlled substances, are illegally shipped into
the United States by mail or private carrier. Those who ship
controlled substances in this fashion do not label their
packages as containing controlled substances. Under the
proposed amendment, drug traffickers could send shipments of
controlled substances into the United States marked ``FDA-
approved noncontrolled substance'' and the FDA would be
powerless to

[[Page H3893]]

take any investigative steps or to assist the United States
Customs Service (USCS) or DEA in intercepting these illegal
shipments.
An additional concern with the proposal is the use of the
phrase ``an individual who is not in the business of
importing prescription drugs.'' This terminology is vague,
impractical, and inconsistent with that use historically in
American drug laws. The FDCA and the CSA have always used the
concept of ``registration.'' Under the FDCA, only those
manufacturers registered with the FDA may import prescription
drugs. Under the CSA, persons must be registered with DEA to
import controlled substances.\1\ Moreover, it would be an
undue burden on law enforcement (and a benefit to
traffickers) to require the government to prove that someone
is ``in the business of importing prescription drugs'' before
even commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons
would simply claim they are ``not in the business of
importing prescription drugs'' in order to stifle
investigation of potential criminal activity.

\1\ The CSA makes an allowance for individuals to import and
export small amounts of controlled substances that are
medically necessary while traveling to and from the United
States--but only for the legitimate personal medical use of
the traveler and in strict compliance with DEA regulations;
not by mail or private carrier. 21 USC 956(a); 21 CFR
1301.26.

As with the proposed amendment described above, another
proposal would likely be exploited by drug traffickers. This
proposal would prevent the FDA from enforcing section
801(d)(1) of the FDCA (21 USC 381(d)(1)), which prohibits the
reimportation into the United States of prescription drugs,
except by the manufacturer of the drug. Under this proposal,
a drug trafficker could stymie legitimate efforts by the FDA
to assist in preventing illegal drug shipments into the
United States simply by attaching a deceptive label to the
shipment (e.g., by labeling a shipment of controlled
substances as containing ``FDA-approved, reimported
prescription drugs'').
DEA, FDA and the USCS are currently facing enforcement
challenges on many fronts with respect to prescription drug
importation and smuggling. Information obtained from the USCS
indicates that there is an increased volume of prescription
drugs being imported through the mail as a result of the
Internet. Although the CSA clearly prohibits importation of
controlled substances in this manner, the FDA and USCS must
inspect each package to ascertain the contents. Identifying a
drug by its appearance and labeling is not an easy task. From
a practical standpoint, inspectors cannot examine drug
products and accurately determine the identity of such
drugs or the degree of risk they pose to the individual
who will use them. This is particularly true since these
drugs are often intentionally mislabeled. Shipments from
countries identified in the section 804(f) of the FDCA
have been the source of a large amount of controlled
substances that have been illegally imported.
Additionally, the USCS inspectors on the southern and
northern borders must determine whether each traveler
entering the United States with a drug is complying with
the FDCA and the CSA. By preventing the FDA from enforcing
certain provisions of the FDCA regarding the importation
of drugs, these amendments could be a windfall for
criminals, giving them a new way to hide their activities
behind a new restriction on law enforcement.
For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the foregoing
amendments to H.R. 2330. Thank you for your attention to this
mater. If we may be of additional assistance, we trust that
you will not hesitate to call upon us.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's
program to the presentation of this report.
Sincerely,
William B. Simpkins,
Acting Administrator.
____

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Food and Drug Administration,
Rockville, MD, July 10, 2001.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Dingell,
Ranking Minority Member, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Dingell: Thank you for your
continued interest in the safety of medicines available in
the United States. This is in response to your letter of July
5, 2001, regarding Representative Gil Gutknecht's proposed
amendment to the FY 2002 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriation
bill, and in follow-up to questions raised by Committee
staff.
As you know, the amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht would
prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency)
from using appropriated funds to enforce section 801 of the
Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic (FD&C) Act to prevent an
individual from importing for personal use a non-controlled
substance, prescription drug that is approved by FDA and
offered for import from a country referred to in section
804(f) of the FD&C Act.
Your questions are restated, followed by the Agency's
response.
1. Section 801 of the FFDCA requires the FDA to take
certain actions when the drug presented for import ``appears
from the examination of such samples'' to be manufactured in
insanitary conditions or adulterated or misbranded, among
other things. The Gutknecht Amendment, however, requires the
FDA to make a determination about whether ``a prescription
drug [has been] approved by such Administration'' when
presented for import. Isn't it true under present law FDA is
not required to determine whether or not a drug is approved
prior to import, and that the Gutknecht Amendment imposes a
higher standard on the Agency? If so, what mechanisms would
FDA have to implement to determine whether a drug is FDA-
approved when presented for importation?
Yes, the Gutknecht Amendment does create new substantial
duties for the Agency:
1. It requires FDA to first determine whether or not an
imported drug is approved before the Agency can take action
against the drug; and,
2. It dramatically increases the burden of proof the Agency
must meet in deciding whether to refuse the importation for
personal use.
Prescription drugs imported for personal use are rarely, if
ever, accompanied by data from the manufacturer that is
sufficient to establish--with certainty--whether the drug was
in fact produced at a facility holding a valid FDA approval
under the conditions and labeling requirements specified in
that approval. An Agency official may be able to visually
identify the drug and determine whether the drug ``appears''
to be approved under current law. However, meeting the
standard of certainty required by the amendment--that is,
determining whether the drug is, or is not, approved--would
require the Agency to compile evidence and make judgments and
determinations far beyond that required under current law.
To compile such evidence, FDA could perform laboratory
analyses on random samples from each shipment, a process that
is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and expensive.
Depending on the nature of the drug and the dosage form, we
estimate a single test can cost between $6,000 and $15,000.
This would, at best, serve to determine whether the drug is
the drug identified in its labeling and is composed of the
FDA-approved formulation. However, first, FDA would have to
develop such testing methodologies, and substantially
increase Agency laboratory capability to handle the
anticipated influx of products needing to be validated. FDA
would also have to determine if that drug is made in a
facility registered with FDA.
Another potential method to determine identify is to try to
trace the product back to the manufacturer. However, FDA
lacks oversight of foreign wholesalers and pharmacists. A
trace back may be feasible if the imported product is labeled
with a lot number, which can be traced back to the
manufacturer, although, without laboratory testing, it is
possible that the drug and its labeling are counterfeits.
However, small shipments of medications for personal use
usually do not provide the lot number and may be composed of
medications from multiple lots.
If enacted, the Gutknecht amendment would, in many
instances, make it virtually impossible for FDA to stop the
personal importation of adulterated or misbrande3d drugs from
the identified countries that pose public health risks
because of the insurmountable burden on the Agency to first
demonstrate that these drugs are not approved products.
2. The Gutknecht Amendment would also require the FDA to
determine from what country a prescription drug is being
imported. Does the FDA presently have the duty to make such a
determination?
No, currently FDA does not have the responsibility to
determine the country from which a product is being imported.
This would be a new duty for FDA. In addition, the amendment
could be construed to allow the importation of approved drugs
stored or handled in countries not listed in section 804(f)
of the FD&C Act as long as the final country from which
the drugs are shipped is listed in 804(f). For example,
FDA and the U.S. Customs Service conducted a pilot study
earlier this year at the Carson international mail
facility in California. FDA identified a large volume of
imported drugs originating in Vanuatu, a country not
listed in 804(f), but transshipped through New Zealand, a
country that is listed in 804(f). Many countries, even
some of those listed in 804(f), lack adequate controls on
transshipment. This amendment would seriously impair FDA's
ability to ensure that such drugs are not subpotent,
counterfeit, contaminated, or otherwise a threat to public
health and safety.
3. Section 801(g)(1)(A)(i) prohibits the FDA from sending
``warning letters'' to individuals who are not in the
business of importing prescription drugs, unless the
Secretary makes a determination that ``importation is in
violation of section 801(a) because the drug is or appears to
be adulterated, misbranded, or in violation of section
595[.]'' The Gutknecht Amendment would allow individuals not
in the business of importing prescription drugs to import
prescription drugs if the drugs are FDA-approved. If the
Gutknecht provision were to pass, the FDA's inquiry would be
whether the drug is approved, not whether it is misbranded or
adulterated. Could the FDA still send warning letters to
individuals not in the business of importing prescription
drugs if the prescription drugs appeared to be adulterated
and/or misbranded?
If the drug is FDA-approved and imported from a country
referred to in 804(f) of the

[[Page H3894]]

FD&C Act, under this amendment, FDA could not issue such a
notice as the first step in preventing the importation even
if the product is adulterated or misbranded. Only if FDA
first determines that the drug is either not approved or is
approved but not imported from a country referred to in
section 804(f) and, is adulterated or misbranded, may FDA
send such a notice to the importing individual if he or she
is not in the business of importing prescription drugs.
As you know, under current law, FDA can send a warning
notice if it first makes a determination that the imported
drug appears to be adulterated, misbranded, or it is not
approved by FDA, or is in violation of other provisions of
section 801. Under the amendment, FDA must determine if the
drug is or is not FDA-approved and from what country the drug
is imported, even if, it also determines that the product is
adulterated or misbranded.
Thank you again for your interest in this issue. Please let
us know if you have further questions.
Sincerely,

William K. Hubbard,

Senior Associate Commissioner for
Policy, Planning, and Legislation.

Let us not be fooled by the real thing. Let us make sure it is the
real thing and not a counterfeit. Reject this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of those pictures, I just want to point out
that those happened years ago and are not happening now. Most
importantly, I believe I am correct, those drugs were actually
purchased on shelves in the United States. These are not drugs being
brought in by Americans going to other places.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, whether the idea comes from a Republican or an
Independent or a Democrat, who is trying to lower the outrageously high
cost of prescription drugs in this country, there goes the
pharmaceutical industry again, which has spent $200 million in the last
3 years to make sure that women in this country who have breast cancer
have to pay ten times more for Tamoxifen than they do in Canada. The
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has a good idea. It will save
substantial sums of money for millions of Americans.
I should point out, by the way, that the concept of reimportation
that we are talking about today has been in existence for 25 years in
Europe; and I do not know of one problem that has existed there. Let us
stand up today to the pharmaceutical industry. Let us support this
amendment. Let us support my amendment. Let us represent the people
back home rather than the big money interests who would defeat both of
these amendments.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the women of this
country who have breast cancer desperately want Tamoxifen but they do
not want counterfeit Tamoxifen, and that is the problem with some of
these amendments. There are a number of problems with this amendment,
and that is why I rise in opposition to it.
First of all, the terms of this amendment are vague; and it is not
even clear how it is intended to function. For example, the amendment
only applies to an individual who is not in the business of importing
prescription drugs. Who is this person, and what business is this
person in?
The key question is: Why does one want to give a person not in the
drug-import business free rein to import drugs?
Secondly, the amendment makes a number of references to the
requirement that these incoming drugs appear to not violate certain FDA
rules and are not controlled substances. The problem with this approach
is one cannot tell whether or not they are, in fact, safe drugs. On the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, we saw some drugs that looked
perfectly fine and they were made out of yellow paint. So one cannot
tell upon inspection whether or not they are a controlled substance or
whether or not they are legitimate.
Third and most importantly, this amendment directly affects section
801 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This section is the safety
section which provides the U.S. Customs Service and FDA the ability to
process and examine foreign shipments of drugs to prevent potentially
tainted, adulterated, or counterfeit drugs from being delivered to
unsuspecting customers.

{time} 1330

Defunding, or doing anything to undermine this section, will
obviously lead to serious problems.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, this will
not do anything to help legitimate cheaper drugs coming into this
country, and instead what we should probably do is hammer signs into
the ground at the borders announcing, welcome to the U.S., drug
counterfeiters and criminals. You are welcome here in the land of
opportunity.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Gutknecht
amendment, and I think there are two reasons we should focus on this.
Number one is cost, and number two is safety.
I have to ask Members, 435 Members, how many have heard the story
from a senior citizen about someone in El Paso, Texas, or Detroit,
Michigan, or some other border city, who has to take Lipitor or some
other prescription drug on a regular basis, and they go to the
neighborhood pharmacy and it is $60; but they can go over the border
and get the exact same drug made by the exact same American
pharmaceutical company, exact same dosage, same box, for $20?
Now, we all, if we have been doing our homework on prescription
drugs, have heard that story. And that is what we are talking about. We
are talking about letting our constituents, not just seniors, but young
mothers and families, save lots of money.
Just listen again to the differences in these prices. Allegra, in
U.S. dollars, $69; in Europe, $20. Lipitor, in America, $52; in Europe,
$41. Premarin, $17 in America; $9.90 in Europe. Prozac, $71 in America;
$44 in Europe.
These are real dollars. This is not just like the difference in
gasoline, as you drive from town to town and State to State.
But we have to ask ourselves, if we allow more competition, will it
not bring down the prices? Certainly it will. Do our constituents
deserve this? Absolutely they do.
I want to also talk about safety, because is it safe not to take your
Lipitor, is it safe not to take your Prozac, is it safe to not take
your Zyrtec? This is the issue that seniors and everyday Americans are
faced with, not taking their drugs because it is too expensive to.
We appropriated $23 million to the FDA. We are not bypassing them. We
are saying control this, but let us give American consumers the
savings.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would confess that the Gutknecht amendment
sounds good on the surface, but when you begin to scratch that surface,
it is not so good. In fact, as some have suggested this afternoon, it
is outright dangerous. Americans want a standard of excellence, and
this amendment, at least the way it is worded, simply does not work.
Under present law, the FDA can stop drugs at the border if they
appear to not be approved. That is sensible. If something looks bad, it
certainly should not be allowed into this country. But under this
amendment, it says that the FDA cannot stop a drug if it appears to be
in compliance, even if it is not approved.
The FDA simply does not have the resources or the manpower to enforce
an amendment of this magnitude, and as my colleague from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) suggested a little bit earlier, this amendment could actually
legitimize counterfeiting of drugs.
I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Gutknecht amendment. I practiced medicine for 15 years, internal
medicine. I treated diabetes, heart disease. I wrote a lot of

[[Page H3895]]

prescriptions, 100 to 200 prescriptions a day.
Most of the criticisms that have been raised by this amendment I
think can be worked through and solved. What this really boils down to
is there are millions of senior citizens in the United States who
cannot afford their prescription drugs, and, for many of them, going to
Canada or doing a mail order arrangement is a very nice solution to the
cost problems.
To say that this is so dangerous, to me, I think, is a little bit of
a red herring. In terms of the appearance language, as I understand it,
that is the standard in the law as it currently exists. The gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) was just following the current standard
in the law.
This amendment will help a lot of people. The majority of seniors
have a prescription plan that is paid for by their previous employer,
so this is not going to affect them. But, for those in need, and I used
to take care of those people, this can be very, very helpful.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, we all want to do whatever we can do to lower the
prescription drug costs for patients, and the sponsors of this
amendment obviously intend to do just that. My friend the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), that is what he is after. But there is
more to this than just lowering the cost. The corresponding cost to
public safety under this amendment is simply unacceptable.
Under this amendment, overseas scam artists can counterfeit a label,
claiming their product is a brand name, and we ban the FDA from even
investigating? Would you vote to ban the FDA from investigating
medications prescribed in this country? Even when they suspect exactly
what is happening, the FDA is banned from investigating.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, wrote a lot of prescriptions as a practicing
dentist for 25 years before I came here. I can tell you, America's
health providers must know beyond any doubt that the medicines that
they give their patients are what they say on the label.
Now, I know that some medications can come in, and it does save some
people some money. But I do not want it imported through the port of
Savannah to be spread out through my State, not knowing what is in that
medicine.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for
introducing this amendment today, which is similar to his amendment
which was passed with broad support last year during the consideration
of the agriculture appropriations bill.
Living in a border State, many of my constituents are burdened with
large prescription bills and travel to Canada to purchase their
medication. This is a hard trip for these people who are driven to such
an extreme because of the high cost of prescription drugs in this
country.
Most of my constituents who board buses to Canada are elderly and in
need of medication to manage chronic conditions. They rely on these
medications to keep them out of costly and unnecessary hospital care.
This amendment enables Americans to obtain their medications from
Canada through personal reimportation.
We must ensure that all of our constituents have access to these more
affordable prescription drugs. Certainly reimportation is not a
panacea, it is not the answer to this problem in itself, but it is a
step, and it is a step, an important step, in the right direction, and
important to the constituents that we represent.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Gutknecht
amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, there are some concerns that have been
raised here by the DEA. They sent a letter to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), dated July 11, 2001, which I will refer to and
have placed in the record. When you look at the actual language, two of
the concerns that they raise in the debate here today is this issue of
appearance.
Under the present law, the FDA can stop drugs at the border if they
appear not to be approved. That is sensible and workable. But the new
Gutknecht amendment shifts the burden. The Gutknecht amendment says the
FDA cannot stop a drug if it appears to be in compliance. If it appears
to be in compliance.
Then it goes even one step further. It says you cannot prevent an
individual who is not in the business of importing a prescription drug.
This is going to be a safe haven for defense lawyers. They are going to
love this. They are going to attack a lot of cases.
Let me refer here to the DEA. DEA says, you know, this will create an
undue burden on law enforcement to require the government to prove that
someone is in the business of importing prescription drugs before even
commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons will simply
claim they are ``not in the business of importing prescription drugs''
in order to stifle investigations of potential criminal activity.
Mr. Chairman, we try to create laws with the best of intentions, and
we create loopholes in the process, because sometimes there are things
that get beyond us. The last thing we want to do is to send a signal to
the international drug cartels, stop hiding your cocaine and your
heroin. I tell you what, just put it in the form of an aspirin, label
it, and it will come into the country. That is the wrong thing that we
do not want to do.
I think this is a well-intentioned amendment, but completely
misguided. Please vote against the Gutknecht amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from the Drug
Enforcement Administration to the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Department of Justice,

Drug Enforcement Administration,

[[Page H3896]]

substances in this fashion do not label their packages as
containing controlled substances. Under the proposed
amendment, drug traffickers could send shipments of
controlled substances into the United States marked ``FDA-
approved noncontrolled substance'' and the FDA would be
powerless to take any investigative steps or to assist the
United States Customs Service (USCS) or DEA in intercepting
these illegal shipments.
An additional concern with the proposal is the use of the
phrase ``an individual who is not in the business of
importing prescription drugs.'' This terminology is vague,
impractical, and inconsistent with that used historically in
American drug laws. The FDCA and the CSA have always used the
concept of ``registration.'' Under the FDCA, only those
manufacturers registered with the FDA may import prescription
drugs. Under the CSA, persons must be registered with DEA to
import controlled substances. Moreover, it would be an undue
burden on law enforcement (and a benefit to traffickers) to
require the government to prove that someone is ``in the
business of importing prescription drugs'' before even
commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons would
simply claim they are ``not in the business of importing
prescription drugs'' in order to stifle investigation of
potential criminal activity.
As with the proposed amendment described above, another
proposal would likely be exploited by drug traffickers. This
proposal would prevent the FDA from enforcing section
801(d)(1) of the FDCA (21 USC 381(d)(1)), which prohibits the
reimportation into the United States of prescription drugs,
except by the manufacturer of the drug. Under this proposal,
a drug trafficker could stymie legitimate efforts by the FDA
to assist in preventing illegal drug shipments into the
United States simply by attaching a deceptive label to the
shipment (e.g., by labeling a shipment of controlled
substances as containing ``FDA-approved, reimported
prescription drugs'').
DEA, FDA and the USCS are currently facing enforcement
challenges on many fronts with respect to prescription drug
importation and smuggling. Information obtained from the USCS
indicates that there is an increased volume of prescription
drugs being imported through the mail as a result of the
Internet. Although the CSA clearly prohibits importation of
controlled substances in this manner, the FDA and USCS must
inspect each package to ascertain the contents. Identifying a
drug by its appearance and labeling is not an easy task. From
a practical standpoint, inspectors cannot examine drug
products and accurately determine the identity of such drugs
or the degree of risk they pose to the individual who will
use them. This is particularly true since these drugs are
often intentionally mislabeled. Shipments from countries
identified in the section 804(f) of the FDCA have been the
source of a large amount of controlled substances that have
been illegally imported. Additionally, the USCS inspectors on
the southern and northern borders must determine whether each
traveler entering the United States with a drug is complying
with the FDCA and the CSA. By preventing the FDA from
enforcing certain provisions of the FDCA regarding the
importation of drugs, these amendments could be a windfall
for criminals, giving them a new way to hide their activities
behind a new restriction on law enforcement.
For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the foregoing
amendments to H.R. 2330. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. If we may be of additional assistance, we trust that
you will not hesitate to call upon us.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's
program to the presentation of this report.
Sincerely,
William B. Simpkins,
Acting Administrator.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I just want to make it clear to all Members the word
``appears'' is what is in the statute today. We are using exactly the
same standard. If Members would like a copy, we certainly can get it to
you.
Ultimately, it comes down, as I said earlier, to this chart. Now, if
Members can explain this chart, if they can defend this chart to their
constituents, then go ahead and vote against my amendment.
It is a very simple amendment. Earlier today we had a special guest
who came and spoke to the Republican Conference, all the way up from
Pennsylvania Avenue. I took some notes, and here are some of the things
that he said. We all ought to pay attention. He said all wisdom does
not reside here in Washington. We trust the people.
Do we really? Do we trust the people to make decisions about their
own health care?
It is important to do what is right for the American people, he said.
This is not a world of the perfect, he said.
Finally, he said, and I quote, ``We have to be a Nation of free
trade.''
Mr. Chairman, if we believe in free trade, if we believe in
empowering the American people, should they not have a right to be able
to import legal, FDA-approved drugs from G-8 countries?
This amendment does not even include Mexico. It does not include
narcotics. My amendment does not include codeine. This is a very
simple, small amendment to say to the FDA, stop pestering law-abiding
citizens. Stop pestering those senior citizens who are trying to save
$37 on their Coumadin. That is ridiculous, it is indefensible, and this
Congress ought to stop it.
We are going to either stand today for free trade in America for
consumers, we are going to stand for our senior citizens who are being
gouged by the big pharmaceutical companies, or we are not, and we are
going to have to make that choice, and every one of us is going to have
to defend that vote. There are many votes we are going to take in the
next year, and many of them we are not going to hear about again. But,
I guarantee, this is one we are going to hear about, because we are
going to be asked by our senior citizens, who did you vote with? When
you had the chance to decide, were you with them, or were you with us?
This is a simple amendment that says law-abiding citizens should have
access to legal FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities, and it
excludes narcotics. How simple is that?
Now, last year a similar amendment passed this House, a much broader
amendment, passed with over 370 votes.
This is a time for choosing. Do we believe in free trade? Do we
believe in competition? Do we believe that free trade is only about
helping the big corporations, or is it about helping our consumers?
We have a chance to make a very clear message to the FDA, to the
bureaucracy, that they work for us, not the other way around.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that the Bush administration
has sent us a letter clearly opposing any amendment such as being
offered now that could result in unsafe, unapproved or counterfeit
drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 2
minutes, 45 seconds.
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is not about ``them or
us.'' This is not a fight between Americans about what our policy is
going to be. This is a question of whether we are going to keep the
promise to all Americans to protect the gold standard of the
pharmaceutical inventory in this country.
We currently through the FDA have compassionate use exceptions. We
have the ability for individuals to cross the borders at Mexico, where
there are 1,500 pharmacies in Tijuana, and we watch that very
carefully. But we have also learned from that experience that we cannot
determine the difference between real and fake.

{time} 1345

What this amendment does is it defunds the enforcement mechanism at
the FDA. It says that by defunding section 801, we do not allow the FDA
to do any of these things that we see on this chart.
Let me go down a few of them. We prohibit drugs that contain filth.
We defund the ability to stop drugs manufactured under unsanitary
conditions. We defund our ability to stop drugs packaged in potentially
unsafe containers. We defund our ability to enforce drugs made with
unsafe filler additives.
In a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, we
had Customs and DEA testify that they found drugs manufactured in
Colombia; and visibly, one could not tell the difference between that
and the real thing except one: it had no active ingredient. Therefore,
it did nothing. The yellow color came from leaded yellow highway paint.
It also contained boric acid, floor wax; and this is what this
amendment would allow people throughout this country to purchase and to
take only with whatever health conditions it might cause.
This would defund our ability to assure quality or purity that falls
below our standards. It would not let us enforce drugs that are
diluted; drugs that have false or misleading labels; drugs with
labeling that does not identify the

[[Page H3897]]

manufacturer, packer or distributor; labeling that does not include the
name and quantity of active ingredients; labeling that does not require
adequate warning. And, most important, this would defund any effort by
our enforcement mechanism to stop drugs that do not comply with child-
resistant packaging requirements under the Poison Packaging Act.
Mr. Chairman, it could not have been said better than by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce: ``I wrote this provision because we
had counterfeiting years ago. If we change this provision, we will have
counterfeiting in the future.''
Defeat this amendment. Stand up for the safety of our pharmaceuticals
in this country.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Gutknecht amendment.
Like the Sanders amendment, this amendment would expose our
constituents to potentially unsafe and harmful drugs. We all want to do
more to help our seniors with access to affordable medicines but
exposing them to potentially unsafe medicines as a way to do so is
unacceptable.
As Members of the authorizing committee will rightfully argue, any
proposed changes to the consumer safety standards in our country--a
system that now ensures our medicines are the safest in the world--
should only be done after thorough investigation and consideration.
To date, that investigation has shown that the Customs Service and
the FDA are already overwhelmed at the border and at international mail
facilities with drugs being shipped in for personal use and only a
small portion of those shipments are currently investigated for their
safety. In fact, our health and safety experts are recommending that we
strengthen protections against these imported mail order drugs, not
weaken them.
And if you won't heed the warnings of the experts, listen to the
people who rely on us to keep their medicines safe. The ALS, Lou
Gehrigs's Association wrote with their concerns:

This amendment would deprive the FDA, pharmacies and thus,
our patients and families of the confidence we now have that
our medicines are safe, have been properly stored, and are
not counterfeit.

The Gutknecht amendment would only compound the safety risk to our
constituents of counterfeit and unsafe medicines. I urge opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7____. None of the funds made available in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration may be used for the
approval or process of approval, under section 512 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, of an application for
an animal drug for creating transgenic salmon or any other
transgenic fish.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I offer this amendment today to ensure the livelihood of commercial
fishermen and protect our oceans, lakes and streams. This amendment is
a reasonable and moderate safeguard. It will delay FDA approval of
genetically engineered fish for 1 year.
This amendment is necessary because commercial fishermen and
environmentalists have raised concerns that GE fish may pose ecological
risks that have not been carefully considered by Federal marine
agencies. This amendment corrects this situation by providing a 1-year
moratorium, giving Congress the opportunity to investigate and
authorize an agency with environmental expertise clear authority to
regulate the environmental impacts of genetically engineered fish.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there are legitimate concerns for the
safety of genetically engineered animals, including transgenic fish.
However, I am concerned that the proposed amendment would actually
delay advancement in the state of scientific knowledge. It would
prevent FDA from reviewing any applications related to transgenic fish.
The process of consulting with sponsors and reviewing applications that
advances scientific understanding in both the public and private
sectors, I do not wish to halt this learning process.
Furthermore, in reviewing these applications, FDA addresses the
safety of the animal, the environment, and the consumer. In addition,
the sponsor must assure that the transgenic fish are contained and not
introduced into the environment or the food chain until safety is
assured. This is a responsible approach. The scientific integrity and
discipline of the drug-approval process makes it a reliable, effective,
and safe venue for advancing scientific knowledge and getting needed
products to the marketplace.
So I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to say in response that what we are proposing here
is not to block research, but to block FDA final approval. Our approach
would mean that the FDA would have to actually do more research.
Scientists from Purdue University and the University of Minnesota have
raised a number of serious questions about the ecological impacts of
genetically engineered fish. These risks include genetically engineered
fish escaping from ocean pens into the environment, which would impact
wild populations of fish. Studies show that genetically engineered fish
are more aggressive, consume more food, and attract more mates than
wild fish. These studies also show that although genetically engineered
fish will attract more mates, their offspring will be less fit and less
likely to survive. As a result, some scientists predict that
genetically engineered fish will cause some species to become extinct
within only a few generations.
As a result of genetically engineered fish producing unfit offspring
that are more successful in mating, the Purdue scientists predict that
if 60, 60 genetically engineered fish were introduced into a population
of 60,000 wild fish, the species would become extinct within only 40
fish generations. They refer to these disturbing results as the trojan
gene effect.
Here we can see why a genetically engineered fish, this would be
represented as a genetically engineered fish and is, in fact, what we
are speaking about, as opposed to two conventionally developed fish,
and we see the difference in size. What happens is, if they are
released into the wild, they become much more attractive for mating;
but they are not as fit. Their offspring are not as fit to survive, and
eventually we end up with an extinct species.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), denying the Food and
Drug Administration's scientific experts the funding necessary to
review the application of transgenic fish.
I oppose this amendment because it does not give the FDA, the experts
in this field, the power to make informed decisions about the safety of
transgenic fish. Congress does not possess the depth of scientific
knowledge needed to determine the safety of transgenic fish. We should
go forward with the review. There is also already a comprehensive
regulatory process at FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine to evaluate
any risk associated with transgenic species.

[[Page H3898]]

Now, the fundamental flaw also in the Kucinich amendment is that it
is not restricted just to transgenic salmon, but applies more broadly
to transgenic fish. For example, the amendment would severely hamper
ongoing research efforts, including catfish research. Catfish is the
Nation's largest aquaculture sector, providing over $500 million in
revenue to farms covering over 190,000 acres in 13 States and is
extremely important to my home State of Mississippi. Also, research on
transgenic catfish is targeted to the development of disease-resistant
stocks and novel veterinary medicine. This research is vital because
catfish farmers can identify disease and, once identified, can remove
the single greatest barrier to improved farm production and human
health.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. agriculture producers and consumers have benefited
greatly from advances in transgenic technology and in plant sciences.
These new tools allow farmers to produce better products, while
reducing chemical use, which provides a tremendous benefit to our
environment. In addition, biotechnology holds the keys to eliminating
world hunger and wiping out global poverty. While this technology has
not been used widely in animal production, the promise for results
similar to those that we have seen within the realm of plant science is
evident.
Let me just close real quickly by saying, oppose the Kucinich
amendment. Stand for sound science. Do not stick our heads in the mud.
This is a great technology that will make species stronger, healthier
and better.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
For the record, this amendment does not restrict any research
funding. I will say it again. This amendment does not restrict any
research funding. Now, in case my colleagues did not hear that, this
amendment does not restrict any research funding. It only restricts FDA
funding related to their approval of the fish, but they do not do
research. Any research funding comes from other USDA research accounts,
and that is not impacted by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio), whose work on this amendment I appreciate.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let us just get this straight one more
time: no impact on research. Companies that are investing in research
are free to continue to research. They are free to continue to consult
with the FDA.
But what we want is a full scientific analysis of the potential
impact of the release of these transgenic fish into the environment.
That is what we are talking about. The FDA has no qualifications in the
area of environmental science. They admit it. They have deemed, under
their authority, that transgenic fish are new drugs. Therefore, they
have the authority to pass on the viability of a new drug and the
safety of a new drug; but the drug that they are approving is a living
fish, a fish that will grow at many times the rate of its natural
cousins; and it will outcompete them for food, outcompete them for
mating activity, and ultimately bring extinction.
Mr. Chairman, in the Pacific Northwest we are spending $400 million a
year to try and recover endangered salmon. Just a few of these
transgenic salmon released into the environment could wipe out some of
the remaining stocks which are struggling to survive.

{time} 1400

We are spending $400 million on one side and we are going to release
something that threatens that on the other side. ``Well, we will not
release them. We will put them in net pens.'' They get out of them all
the time. Storms come, they slosh out. Birds come, pick them up, then
they drop them. That is an accepted fact.
They say, ``Do not worry, they will not be able to mate.'' Then the
same companies that are manufacturing these transgenic fish admit that,
``Actually, our process is not quite foolproof, some probably can mate.
But do not worry about it, do not worry about it, we do not think there
will be a problem.''
The companies go on to say that they have not evaluated the problem.
They have not evaluated the potential impact on native fish stocks.
They have not evaluated the environmental impacts. But they say, ``Do
not worry, the FDA has approved it.''
The FDA has approved transgenic fish as a new drug, not as a living
creature to be released into the environment to interbreed with
existing species. This is extraordinary.
The agency that should have jurisdiction perhaps would be the
National Marine Fisheries Service. They know about fish. Maybe it would
be the Environmental Protection Agency. They know a little bit about
the environment. No, we are doing this in the FDA.
Here is what the agricultural coordinator for the National Marine
Fisheries Service said. He was surprised to hear that the FDA was
overseeing the environmental review regarding new salmon and making
decisions on such things as whether fish would be grown in net pens.
Mr. Rhodes said, ``The National Marines Fishery Service, not the Food
and Drug Administration, has the expertise to make such decisions and
would need to be involved.'' That was May 1 of last year. Yet now we
are rushing forward for the profits of a few companies to endanger the
environment of the United States and the world. These fish should not
be released into our environment until we fully understand the effects.
This amendment does not affect consultation between the FDA and the
manufacturers, it does not in any way impact their research or their
development, but it does say, ``Before we allow you to put them into
the common environment of the United States of America, into our bays,
our tributaries, our rivers, or even our ponds, because sometimes they
get out of there, too, we want to know what the potential impact is on
other species of fish.''
That is all we are asking for here. It is a simple request: Bring in
an agency that knows something about fish, not the people at the FDA.
Find one person at the FDA who has a degree in marine biology and I
will buy dinner. There are not any over there. They do not know a
darned thing about this issue or the potential impacts on the
environment and other species of fish.
So this is a very, very prudent and conservative amendment. I urge
Members to adopt it.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I rise reluctantly to oppose this amendment today, because of my
respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a good friend of
mine. But I think his amendment that would cut off funding for the FDA
to go through the approval process or issue the final approval is bad
policy.
I do not believe the anti-biotech position is supported by the facts.
Even the Washington Post in this Monday's editorial entitled ``Food
Fight'' called efforts to ban biotech murderous nonsense. Let me read
from the article.
``Is this technology safe? No test has suggested that genetically-
engineered crops harm human health. On the other hand, a lack of
plentiful, cheap food harms human health enormously. Half the children
in South Asia and one-third in sub-Saharan Africa are malnourished
today. Among other consequences, these children suffer iodine
deficiency disorder, which causes mental retardation, and vitamin A
deficiency, which causes blindness.
``Some anti-genetic activists say the poor will not be able to afford
or benefit from these new genetic products.'' They say also that the
so-called ``green revolution'', which was supposed to conquer hunger
and in their view did not, ``the green revolution, which involved
improving seeds and fertilizers and pesticides, actually more than
doubled cereal production in South Asia between 1970 and 1995. Despite
enormous population growth during that period, it reduced the
malnutrition rate in the world from 40 percent to 23 percent.''
So what the green revolution began, the gene revolution can continue.
Today's amendment would stop the approval process or the approval. I
think that is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

[[Page H3899]]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard several times on the floor that this does
not stop funding for research, all it does is stop funding for final
approval by the FDA of that research. We might as well stop funding for
research, because who is going to put money into the research if there
is no provision for final approval for use of that research once it is
done?
The FDA has the legal authority to regulate products derived from
transgenic animals. Although significant public and private research to
develop commercially useful transgenic fish is ongoing, none have
completed the FDA process at this time. Products regulated as new
animal drugs in the United States are subject to rigorous premarket
requirements to determine effectiveness, to ensure food, animal, and
environmental safety. This process includes targeting animal safety,
safety to the environment, and safety for consumers who eat foods
derived from genetically-engineered animals.
The Center for Veterinary Medicine intends to use various approaches,
including a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, to identify
further environmental safety issues associated with the investigation
and commercial use of transgenic animals.
To do this, the agency will cooperate closely with other Federal and
State agencies that have related authorities, such as the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, in the case
of transgenic Atlantic salmon. Last year, the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences concluded that the regulatory system for biotech foods is
appropriate and effective.
These are some of the reasons why this amendment is strongly opposed
by a coalition of agricultural interests, including the American Farm
Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Grocery
Manufacturers of America, the National Corngrowers Association, the
National Cotton Council, the National Fruit Processors Association, and
many, many more.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this step back into the
dark ages.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of
the subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I want to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for
bringing this extremely important issue before the full House as we
debate this 2002 agriculture appropriations bill.
Let me say to the gentleman that I think what is so important about
what he has done is he has drawn a line in the sand. He is saying to us
that before we cross the line between the green revolution and the
genetic revolution, somebody here in Congress had better pay attention
that our government is not even properly structured to deal with this
significant scientific leap.
We are not talking about the marriage of genes between necessarily
like species that have mated in nature, or pollinated in nature. But
rather, we are addressing the injection of growth hormones into fish
that have never mated, producing species that we have never seen the
likes of, and nature has never seen the likes of since the dawn of
time.
From an administrative standpoint, we could ask ourselves, who is in
charge of fish, anyway? We cannot even get the government of the United
States to inspect fish that is coming over our borders and causing
people to get sick across this country.
So who is in charge of fish? We have the Commerce Department, with
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We have the
Interior Department with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have the
USDA, with the Food Safety Inspection Service. We have the EPA, which
issues these advisories such as ``Do not eat fish from Lake Erie but
one per week because of mercury levels being too high.''
I can tell the Members this, that we know today that we have half as
many fish in our oceans as we did 25 years ago. This diminishment of
the natural system of oceanic fish production is a serious
international problem. If we think about the dawn of genetic
engineering, this is but another transgenic product that we should be
concerned about when it is released from containment into the natural
environment. We do not know its consequences on the ecosystem, in the
same way as we do not know the consequences of transgenically-altered
plants in the natural environment. We are ill-equipped as a country to
deal with these issues in any intelligent way, so we sort of get into
using current unprepared bureaucracies, like FDA, which this amendment
addresses.
Mr. Chairman, nothing in the gentleman's amendment stops research.
But what it does is it says let us take a pause for thought here with
the FDA. Let us take a look as a Congress to investigate and authorize
the appropriate agency with environmental expertise and clear authority
to regulate the impacts of these genetically-engineered fish, wherever
that might be.
I fully support the amendment and urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason America has the
highest standards and the safest foods in the world, safer than Europe,
more nutrition than Asia, using less pesticides and preserving more of
the environment than any other Nation in the world. The reason is that
time and time again America has refused to inject politics into our
food safety process.
However, that is what this amendment does. It contaminates our
scientifically sound food safety process with politics. There is no
scientific reason for the moratorium. The FDA already requires all food
applicants, whether they are scientifically improved or not, to meet
their highest safety standards, not just for human food consumption but
for animal welfare and environmental safety.
This amendment not only does not contribute to food safety, it
actually harms it, because it says no matter how beneficial, no matter
how strong and valuable this research is, we cannot even consider it.
This does discourage research into aquaculture breakthroughs which help
us develop fish stocks that are healthier, more abundant, and more
immune to disease.
That is important not just to farm catfish, not because we have
decimated the world's fishing, but it helps to save the 30 percent of
fish killed needlessly each year because of illness. If fish are
healthy, the food is going to be healthy.
Finally, this amendment feeds the European hysteria, and feeds upon
normal people who have not thought about the progress and benefits of
biotechnology, too. The fact of the matter is that we produce more food
on less land, more environmentally safe food with less pesticides in
America and around the world because of biotechnology.
At Texas A&M, which I represent, we work with the Medical Center in
Houston to develop plants and vegetables that have cancer-fighting
oxidants. As we said here today, scientists have rice that will address
the vitamin A deficiency which could help prevent 500,000 children each
year from going blind in this world.
This is a risky amendment. This is a scientifically unsound
amendment. Most importantly, it injects politics into food. Let us keep
the politics out of food safety and in Washington where it belongs.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, there seems to be some
misunderstanding about the purpose of this amendment. It is not a ban,
it is a 1-year moratorium to begin to study the effects on the
environment, on consumers.
I also want to point out that something the Washington Post cited on
May 19, 2001, basically supporting the approach of the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. Chairman, the Post points out that the FDA has classified what
they call genetic enhancement, these bigger fish, as a drug for
animals. Now, follow this. The FDA says it is a drug for animals. That
technically means, according to the Post, the main task of its review
will not be to look at the effects of the fish on the environment or
fish

[[Page H3900]]

on the consumer, but to study the effect of the growth hormone on the
fish. That is all the FDA does.
So here we have people advocating the right of fish to have growth
hormones, and saying that that is more important than the right of
people to be defended against possible adverse human health
consequences, or the right that we have and the responsibility we have
to protect our environment.
Protecting the right of fish to have growth hormones, indeed.
Something smells fishy about the opposition, which would want to
protect the right of fish to have growth hormones. That is all the FDA
does here.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, very respectful of the gentleman offering the
amendment, to oppose the amendment offered today.
While I, too, have concerns for the safety of our food that has been
genetically engineered, we need to continue the FDA's oversight and
expertise in this area. Handcuffing the FDA by prohibiting their review
process has very broad policy implications.
The risks associated with transgenic fish, and specifically salmon,
are overstated. Claims that transgenic salmon will create genetic
pollution are unfounded because only sterile all-female stock would be
commercialized, virtually eliminating any risk of cross-breeding with
wild salmon.
Legislating the approval process of FDA has far-reaching implications
which could negatively impact future innovations to improve our food
supply and our health.

{time} 1415

We have a world to feed, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose the amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who preceded me in the well
quoted from The Washington Post on an editorial about plants. Let us
read the editorial The Washington Post wrote about fish. ``The
ecosystem may or may not be ready for the first genetically engineered
salmon, but the regulatory system emphatically is not. Environmental
issues will be covered, the FDA promises, but the environmental and
marine specialists who could best address them are housed at other
agencies, and no law requires the routine involvement in decisions
about the handling of genetically modified organisms that might get
released into the environment.''
The gentlewoman who preceded me in the well said there will be
virtually no risk because they will be sterilized. But the companies
who manufacture these fish admit they cannot sterilize them all. Come
on, they are not perfect. So some of them will get into net pans that
will not be sterile, and we know some of the fish in net pans will get
out. But if we are lucky, it will not be the ones who are not sterile;
and if we are really lucky, if they are the ones who are not sterile,
they will get caught before they breed. But if they breed, they could
cause an unmitigated environmental disaster.
That is why a huge number of organizations, of fishers across the
United States, bicoastal, and on the Gulf oppose the release of these
fish before we know their potential impact on the environment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 2\1/4\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have only one remaining speaker and the
right to close, therefore I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment puts the scientific decision-making process into the
hands of the best scientists for the job. I oppose the FDA making
environmental decisions on GE fish. The FDA does not staff fish
scientists, does not staff fish scientists, and has not consulted with
the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The following passage is from an article in The Washington Post.

Edwin Rhodes, aquaculture coordinator for the National
Marine Fisheries Service, said he was surprised to hear that
the Food and Drug Administration was overseeing the
environmental review regarding new salmon and making
decisions on such things as whether fish would be grown in
net pans. Mr. Rhodes said the National Marine Fisheries
Service, not the Food and Drug Administration, had the
expertise to make such decisions and would need to be
involved.

So I think we have to look at the scientific issues here. And does
this sound like the FDA is adequately addressing the environmental
concerns that are raised? It does not. But a 1-year delay would give
Congress the opportunity to make sure that the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are included in the
process. I want to make sure that Congress will include the appropriate
scientists in the approval process.
This amendment is about a 1-year moratorium to give us the chance to
make sure that the right decisions are being made, or else, my
colleagues, we may soon see a version of Frankenfish which will
exterminate whole species of fish. We have an obligation to consumers
to look at this and not to jump to a hasty decision which would involve
the FDA giving approval for fish when in fact the FDA is not involved
with health issues and environmental issues relating to consumers.
This amendment is strongly supported by commercial fishermen,
including the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, the
Alaska Trawlers Association, and the Washington Trawlers Association
because their struggling industry, industries important to this
country, cannot afford a negative ecological impact on the wild fish
species that they depend on for their livelihood.
Vote for this amendment. It is to protect our people's health, our
environmental health, and it is only for a 1-year moratorium.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment;
and I want to approach this from really just a broad and general
perspective.
If we look over the next 25 years, the world's population is going to
increase by 2.5 billion. This 2.5 billion increase in population is
going to be occurring primarily in the developing countries of the
world. When we look at the tremendous demand for food, and in
particular for protein, in order to ensure that these people are going
to have adequate nutrition, we have to be ensuring that we are
investing in new science and research that is going to ensure that we
have the capacity to produce these food products.
My concern with the amendment that we are considering today is, one,
that it will circumvent our science-based regulatory process. I am
concerned that it will set the process back, that it will ensure that
we can have politics that can intercede all too often that will
preclude our ability to ensure that we can see progress in the
development of these new technologies.
One of my colleagues earlier today in this debate mentioned we have
half as many fish in the ocean today as we did some few decades ago. A
lot of this is due to overfishing and fishing that was occurring
because of the demand to provide an adequate food source for a lot of
people today. When we are looking at the potential for this technology,
the technology that can be advanced through transgenic fish, this is
something that in many ways could almost relieve some of this pressure
on our natural fisheries by ensuring that we can continue to see
progress in the commercial production of food and fish products.
So I think this is another argument for us to ensure that we are
again continuing this science-based process. Some of the concerns that
my colleagues raise I think are adequate. We ought to ensure we are
using the most appropriate science. But FDA today is required, when
they are considering the approval of these new transgenic

[[Page H3901]]

products, to have a dialogue, to be consulting with EPA, with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA, as
well as USDA.
Furthermore, it is this amendment that would preclude that continued
research and investigation through those bodies that have the
scientific expertise. In fact, this amendment would set back our
ability to fully understand the science and the threat that transgenic
fish might pose for human consumption as well as the threat it might
potentially pose to the environment.
Once FDA is confident that, through their investigation and the
scientific process, that there is not a significant or marginal threat
to both consumers as well as the environment, before anyone can even
get a permit to produce transgenic fish, they are also going to have to
go through a permitting process at both the Federal and the State
level; that they will have to be dealing once again with EPA and other
agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife and EPA, which will be mandatory. So we have another safeguard
there to ensure we will have adequate protections to the environment to
ensure that we will not see any negative impacts.
In closing, I just ask my colleagues to respect the process. One of
my colleagues earlier said that this is an amendment to protect the
ability to use hormones in fish. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Opposing this amendment is to protect a science-based process,
to protect a process that will ensure that we will be able to reach out
to the best scientists in the country that we have available to ensure
that we will have adequate protections. And when we go through that
process, we also then will have the promise. We will have the promise
that we can see the increase in food production, in this case, in the
production of fish, that can meet the protein and nutritional needs of
hundreds of thousands if not billions of people that are going to be
populating this Earth.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of this amendment and urge my colleagues to support the
amendment which would preserve funding for the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. I also want to extend my gratitude to my colleagues for
introducing this important amendment.
The Heritage Rivers Initiative is entirely voluntary and locally-
driven. This program is composed of local river pilots who work for a
federal agency. These pilots help communities locate the resources they
need to improve water quality, reduce flood losses, and promote
environmental and riverfront development along some of the nation's
significant waterways, including the Upper Mississippi River.
This program has been extremely successful in the designated areas
along the Upper Mississippi River that include 58 communities in
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri. Along the Upper Mississippi
River, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative has been instrumental in
bringing communities together to link existing trails and greenways,
establish and improve interpretive centers, restore habitat and promote
riverfront revitalization. I fully support this program, and I also
support the proposed designations of Alma and Prairie du Chien,
Wisconsin.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in support of this
amendment and the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment from the gentleman from Ohio. This proposal is a thinly
disguised attack on biotechnology. It would prohibit the Food and Drug
Administration from using finding to review and approve applications
for salmon and fish improved from biotechnology.
This amendment not only wastes money that already has been spent
assessing the health and environmental safety of these biotech fish, it
also would prevent FDA from meeting its obligations to review new foods
under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Current law and regulations require applicants who wish to bring a
new fish on the market to undergo a ``new animal drug'' review process
by the Center for Veterinary Medicine. In meeting these requirements,
an applicant must meet rigorous safety standards, which include strict
requirements on animal welfare, the environment, and human health. This
premarket review process ensures that the products of biotechnology are
safe to grow and eat.
It is interesting to note that while research to develop
commercially-viable biotech fish is well underway, none has completed
the FDA review process. This amendment would effectively end current
research projects and would put future private and public research
efforts to improve quality and lower cost at risk.
Today, for example, disease is the biggest impediment to improved
production of farm-raised catfish. This amendment would seriously
undermine research that could improve these yields and reduce losses
from disease.
Quick-growing biotech salmon could reduce the pressure on wild fish
stocks that are used for feed. Salmon farmers also use only sterile,
all-female stock to prevent cross-breeding with wild populations. The
gentlemen's amendment would throw out all of the research and capital
that were used to develop these new varieties and that is needed to
move toward more sustainable fish production and harvesting.
FDA's policy on biotechnology has been in place for nearly ten years
and has allowed the safe introduction of wholesome and safe food.
Incidentally, FDA's policy applies to all foods, not just those
produced using biotechnology. The gentleman's amendment implies that
biotech foods are inherently different and more risky than foods
produced using traditional techniques such as cross breeding. There is
no scientific evidence to justify this assertion.
Rather than incite unfounded, ideologically-driven fears of this
technology, we should recognize the incredible potential of
biotechnology. Biotechnology will help alleviate hunger in the
developing world, promote more environmentally-friendly and sustainable
farming practices, reduce pressures on arable land, and create new
markets for farmers.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake: this is a measure aimed at stopping
aquacultural biotechnology. FDA's current regulatory process should not
be short circuited. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Clayton

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mrs. Clayton:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:

Sec. 738. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--Agriculture Buildings and Facilities
and Rental Payments'', by reducing the amount made available
for ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service--research and education
activities'' (and the amount specified under such heading for
competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), by reducing
the amount made available for ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--Farm
Service Agency--salaries and expenses'', and by increasing
the amount made available for ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service--research and education activities'' (and the amount
specified under such heading for a program of capacity
building grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to
receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-
326 and 328), including Tuskegee University), by increasing
the amount made available for ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service--research and education activities'' (and the amount
specified under such heading for payments to the 1890 land-
grant colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C.
3222)), and by increasing the amount made available for
``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers'', by $5,521,000, $10,000,000, and $7,007,000,
respectively.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and a
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have agreed to present my amendment with the
understanding that the chairman is going to work with us during
conference, and

[[Page H3902]]

then I will withdraw it. But he has graciously allowed us to get the
argument into the Record.
This amendment is an en bloc amendment and has three phases to it.
The first part is to indeed allow for justification for the outreach to
small and disadvantaged farmers. The reason why we need these extra
resources for small and disadvantaged farmers is because small farmers,
all farmers are having difficulty, but small farmers and disadvantaged
farmers and minority farmers are especially having difficulty.
We are all aware of the issue around farmers not being able to get
credit, farmers not being able to get the technical assistance, farmers
not being able to keep up with the new technology. Well, providing
monies to what we call the 2501 program allows them to do that. So we
are asking for an increase to indeed have those resources.
The second part of this amendment would include the research. Now, I
understand that many people have problems where we are suggesting the
money should be coming from. But the issue we want for our colleagues
to understand on this, is that the research and extension for the 1890
institutions has been woefully underfunded. I brought this chart so it
could be put in as part of the Record. Indeed, this is the national
research initiative, the competitive grant in the 1999 fiscal year,
where we could find the records. All of the seventeen 1890 colleges got
5/10 of 1 percent of the money.
Now, why is this an inequity we want to bring to the attention of my
colleagues? Well, most of the small farmers and disadvantaged farmers
are more concentrated where the 1890 institutions are. And to the
extent that they are not allowed to provide the research to add to the
understanding of the research in those areas it would be indeed an
error.
The third part of this amendment was the whole issue of capacity
building. The capacity building of the grant would allow the
opportunity to provide monies for graduate students, for professors,
and those who would have the opportunity to build up the capacity of
these universities. Now, I understand that this is perceived as
impossible, as being too expensive. Is it too expensive to make these
1890 universities, some 17 of them, as capable as any other university?
It adds to the capacity of the American rural structure. It adds to the
capacity and the research that we are providing new people about the
understanding of our food and our fiber.
So I would ask my colleagues as we move forward to support this.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be joined by one of the cosponsors of this
amendment. Her particular interest was the research, but she is
interested in all parts of the en bloc amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina for allowing me the opportunity to work with her. I also
thank the chairman of this committee and the ranking member for their
leadership and their concern.
This is not a new attempt. This is an initiative that we worked on
with the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies and the authorization committee
last year dealing with the 1890 land grant colleges. I am on the
Committee on Science, and I know the value of R&D. I also know the
value of the history of farmers as well as those farmers in the African
community.
But generally speaking, the history of the land grant colleges were
around the rural communities in particular. They came out of the soil,
if you will. In fact, many of the colleges still have very large
agricultural programs now and teach agricultural science, such as
Prairie View A & M.

{time} 1430

It is interesting we are not in this amendment asking, if you will,
to take over the percentages and the dollars given to other colleges,
in particular the 1862 land grant. But what we are highlighting is that
the research dollars to the 1890 land grant is less than 1 percent. It
is .5. So the opportunity for innovative research that can help in
nutrition, that can help in agricultural science as it relates to the
research done with farm animals, if you will, if an urbanite can
suggest that particular type of research, soil research, environmental
research, coming from these kinds of campuses, dealing with small
farmers is an enormous asset to what is a very important part of our
economy, and that is farming and food and agriculture.
So I would simply ask and join the gentlewoman from North Carolina in
asking for our amendment to be supported along the lines of research in
enhancing the opportunity for these colleges. In my State it is Prairie
View A & M, but there are many, many colleges that can benefit by this
research. It is, again, not to take away, it is to enhance.
I would hope that we would want to enhance the opportunities for
research among these particular colleges. I ask for support of this
amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand clearly that we are to work on this in the
weeks ahead and the months ahead to try to address the concerns of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina and would like to inquire if the
gentlewoman from North Carolina is still intending to withdraw her
amendment.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I do have another speaker, if
the gentleman will allow me to do that.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Clayton) for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to publicly acknowledge the incredible work
that the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) has done in
proposing this amendment along with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee). Were it not for their vision and leadership last year, we
would not have had any increase to these accounts.
Without question these colleges and institutes have such an enormous
impact in our country, but also can be pivotal institutions for
advancement in other countries. I envision the day when these
additional dollars will be able to link these institutions to even some
of the most underdeveloped areas of Africa. There, I think, cooperative
research projects could benefit both nations, the farmers of both
nations, the people of both nations.
I also want to thank both the gentlewomen from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for taking a
hard look at the full potential of these historically black colleges
and universities and the Tuskegee Institute and the needs of our
smaller African American farmers.
In supporting this amendment, I am reminded of my travels to one
State where there were significant civil rights suits against the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. It was unbelievable to me that loans were
not being made to very worthy endeavors by minority farmers for food
processing. We run into this age-old problem of discrimination even by
some of the local loan committees that still exist across this country.
I think that these universities and the Tuskegee Institute and these
colleges can help lead America forward in a very important way. They
can be of special assistance because of the trust with which they and
their researchers are held by the very communities that we want to
assist.
Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to these two gentlewomen--who
really cannot be viewed as only gentle for some of what they have to
address in serving at the national level and dealing with some of the
issues that we contend with--that they are leading America forward in
this new millennium in a way that is so vitally necessary. They
certainly have my support in their intentions to increase funding in
these categories.

[[Page H3903]]

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlewoman wishes to withdraw the amendment
at some point, but hopefully as we move toward the Senate, we will be
able to take my colleague's excellent recommendations and enact them
into law through conference.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking
member for the sensitivity and enormity of her leadership in feeding
the world.
I wanted to restate something that is crucial: The kind of
partnerships that can be established between the historically black
colleges and developing nations in terms of nutrition and agriculture
science and opportunities to enhance their ability to provide food for
themselves, which is a great problem in developing nations.
I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership. I
thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, certainly we know in most of those places
it is women who are raising most of the food and feeding their
villages. We know that the historically black colleges and Tuskegee
Institute will be especially sensitive to that. Without a doubt their
reach can be worldwide.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of those who are sensitive to this
issue; but I want to raise the issue of the contribution that small
family farmers and minority farmers are making to the vitality of the
agricultural community. And to the extent we help them, and 2501 is
that outreach program, it is administered by nonprofit groups and 1890
colleges, and that is why it is essential to get sufficient funds for
it.
The research that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
emphasized so strongly, already there is a connection between the
developing countries. Tuskegee is doing biotechnology in Nigeria. There
is a program, Farmers to Africa, Farmers to Caribbean. 1890 is taking
sustainable agricultural know-how to these small, struggling countries
to transfer the knowledge we have. So Americans are doing good and well
at the same time.
Finally, the capacity-building of the 1890 colleges is sustained to
add to the credibility and the strength of our higher education system.
Research is an important part of agriculture, and to that extent we
want to strengthen all of the land grant colleges, and this allows us
to strengthen the 1890 land grant colleges.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with
us as we go forward in the conference committee.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Baca:
Page 74, after line 21, insert the following new section:
Sec. 741. The amount otherwise provided by this Act in
title I under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS--
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service--research and education activities'' for an education
grants program for Hispanic-serving Institutions (7 U.S.C.
4231) is hereby increased by $16,508,000.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to increase funding
for USDA grants for Hispanic-serving institutes for agricultural
research. Hispanic-serving institutes, or HSIs, are the backbone of
Hispanic college education. These schools have great research
capabilities and have much to offer, but because they do not have a
land grant or are not necessarily historical, they sometimes do not
receive all of the resources they deserve.
I salute the efforts of the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla), on behalf of the Hispanic-serving institutions on his work
towards allowing HSIs to gain a foothold into agricultural research
grants. Yet I am certain that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
would agree with me that these schools merit more funding, especially
to increase the growth and development of Hispanics in our
institutions.
Mr. Chairman, 41 percent of all USDA research project proposals for
HSIs are funded. Forty-one percent is a remarkable success rate for
proposal acceptance. We obviously have a great resource here that we
are not using nearly enough, and we need to tap into that.
In addition, I would like to ask Secretary Veneman and the
administration to understand that these institutions are important to
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and we will work and fight for more
resources.

FY 2000 HIGHER EDUCATION HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS EDUCATION GRANTS
PROGRAM TOTAL FUNDS AWARDED TO STATES AND LEAD INSTITUTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and lead institution Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:
Hartnell Community College................................ $299,932
California State University--San Bernardino............... 150,000
West Hills Community College.............................. 300,000
New Mexico:
New Mexico State University............................... 149,585
Luna Vocational Technical Institute....................... 150,000
Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico...................... 148,770
Texas:
Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi...................... 149,974
Palo Alto College......................................... 299,992
St. Edwards University.................................... 299,875
University of Texas at Brownsville....................... 263,664
Houston Community College................................. 299,995
Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi...................... 161,313
Texas A&M University--Kingsville.......................... 55,664
-----------
Total................................................... 2,728,764
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the work of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) on this very important issue on
Hispanic-serving institutions, and I want to also express my gratitude
for his acknowledging what this subcommittee has done; and also what
has been done historically on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education over the last few years in a bipartisan
way to take care of many of the problems that exist at many
institutions in terms of funding.
Mr. Chairman, as I discussed with the gentleman before, we are
willing to work to see if there is a possibility at all to try to
increase this number down the road. We do not know if that is going to
be possible, but we certainly will make every effort. We have given
increases in this bill over the last 2 years as well, and we are doing
all we can; and we certainly will continue to do that.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Baca) for his leadership in bringing this issue to the attention of our
subcommittee. The gentleman from California is particularly well suited
to sensitizing the Congress for the extra attention that needs to be
put to identify those institutions serving higher numbers of Hispanic
populations, and to help to place those in a more competitive position
with larger and more established institutions that tend to have first
call at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, even in their research
protocols.
Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that he will have my full
support in identifying ways to move funding to those institutions to
reach a broader array of the American public, and, as with some of the
other institutions we were talking about a little bit earlier,
particularly those serving African American populations, to look also
toward a global role for those institutions because of their inherent
bilingual capabilities and the historic ties

[[Page H3904]]

that exist, certainly with Latin America and other places.
So we do not have a narrow view of only one State or even our own
country, but we have this tremendous resource in our own country if we
but see it and enhance it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for coming to us and for being
the leader in this Congress and for bringing this issue to our
attention. California could not have sent a more capable representative
here, and the gentleman certainly has my pledge to work with him as we
move toward conference to see if we cannot do it better in this new
millennium than perhaps some of those who served here in the past.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. We all
realize that it is important to support institutions such as the HSIs,
and I appreciate the lead that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
has taken in the past years ensuring funding, and I look forward to
working with him in the future in conference committee to increase
funding for this wonderful grant program.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that my amendment is subject to a point of
order. I concede to that point of order, and I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 20 offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht); amendment No. 13 offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Sanders

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 20 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 267, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 216]

AYES--159

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bereuter
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hunter
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Udall (NM)
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--267

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Cardin
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Saxton
Schrock
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Capuano
Coyne
Dingell
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Paul
Riley

{time} 1508

Messrs. LaTOURETTE, HOYER, MANZULLO, PHELPS, BARTLETT of Maryland,
WALDEN of Oregon, Ms. HART, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mrs.
NORTHUP, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut and Mr. ROSS changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 216, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.

[[Page H3905]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 324,
noes 101, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 217]

AYES--324

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burton
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--101

Armey
Baker
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Cantor
Collins
Crane
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehrlich
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Graves
Greenwood
Grucci
Herger
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kerns
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Obey
Oxley
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Pombo
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rogers (KY)
Roukema
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sessions
Sherman
Skeen
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauzin
Thomas
Tiberi
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller

NOT VOTING--8

Capuano
Coyne
Dingell
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
McKinney
Paul
Riley

{time} 1522

Ms. LOFGREN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. JoANN DAVIS of Virginia, Ms.
MILLENDER-McDONALD and Messrs. SANDLIN, GRAHAM, ROGERS of Michigan,
BECERRA, ROEMER, WHITFIELD and PICKERING changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 217, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 218]

AYES--145

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bentsen
Berkley
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clement
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dicks
Doggett
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--279

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dooley

[[Page H3906]]

Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Grucci
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Capuano
Coyne
Dingell
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Oxley
Paul
Riley
Watson (CA)

{time} 1532

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 218, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Insert before the short title at the end the following new
section:
Sec. ____. Effective three months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available in this Act may be used to pay the
salaries or expenses of personnel of the Department of
Agriculture to make price support available (in the form of
loans, direct payments to producers, or other subsidies) with
respect to an agricultural commodity in the absence of a
report to Congress by the Secretary of Agriculture that (1)
fully specifies the amount of Federal funds being used to
provide such price support and (2) describes the full effect
of import quotas and tariffs imposed by the United States to
protect such commodity.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to offer an amendment that would direct the Department of
Agriculture to submit a report to Congress that details the full amount
of Federal funds being used to provide price support and describe the
full effects of quotas and tariffs imposed on our Government protecting
commodities.
Mr. Chairman, we have a strange patchwork of policies that date back
two-thirds of a century to the Depression Era, back to a time when
there were 6 million family farmers, when 25 percent of our population
lived on the farms. Today, we have a crazy patchwork of programs that
have serious environmental impacts, which is why this amendment has
been endorsed by Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Working
Group, but it also has distorting impacts as far as the economy is
concerned. It is estimated that worldwide, there are over $150 billion
in extra costs that are added; and for the United States consumer, it
is the equivalent of a 3 percent food sales tax, and the most
regressive because of the impacts this has on the poor who spend more,
$18 billion a year.
We deserve, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to see the big picture
before we move forward with other elements that deal with agriculture,
that deal with international trade.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Miller) to speak to a specific example of the impacts that we are
concerned about.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment, and I thank the gentleman for introducing it.
All we are asking for is transparency, and let me use the
illustration of the sugar program that was passed in 1996, when we were
told, no cost to the American taxpayer. Well, let us look at the facts.
Let us look at the facts.
First of all, GAO says it cost $1.9 billion for the American
consumer. The American consumer is the American taxpayer, so it cost
$1.9 billion. Last year, the Federal Government had to buy $430 million
worth of sugar, and it does not have any use for it. It is having to
store it. We are spending $20 million a year to store all of this sugar
that we have no use for, and yet we were told that it had no cost. The
price of sugar in the United States is more than double what it is
elsewhere around the world, as if the Federal Government were a major
purchaser of sugar, whether it is in VA hospitals or schools and such.
In addition, under the environmental issue, sugar is a major
contributor to the pollution of the Everglades. We are going to spend
$8 billion to clean up the Everglades, and we are going to pay a lot of
that cost because the sugar program is causing the problem.
So these agriculture programs that say, oh, it does not cost the
Government anything, we do not know what it costs us. It has direct
costs and it has indirect costs, and all this amendment says is let us
have transparency, and let us figure out what it really costs.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon
bringing this important amendment to the floor.
It is also important to remember that in 1996, this Congress brought
the Freedom to Farm Act to this floor. The professed plan was to phase
out farm subsidies in 7 years by spending $36 billion on additional
subsidies.
Well, 7 years later we have spent over $80 billion instead of $44
billion, and that has not even been enough for subsidy supporters. In
emergency funding for agriculture alone, Congress has spent an
additional $38 billion. That means we either made a very bad guess back
in 1996, or we are dealing with very bad public policy.
Today we find that the Freedom to Farm Act that was supposed to free
America from farm subsidies while freeing American taxpayers from price
supports, has actually backfired; and now. Congress once again is
paying two, three, even four times the amount of subsidies that we
pledged to the American people in 1996.
Congress passed welfare reforms for struggling, single parents; and
now Congress needs to pass similar reforms for the American farmer.
Americans should not continue paying people for not planting their
crops.
The Freedom to Farm Act failed because Congressional courage failed
all American taxpayers. We need to look at these misguided policies
again, and stop subsidy payments that continue to cost American
taxpayers billions of dollars.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would hope that we on this floor of both parties, people of
disparate philosophical orientations, could agree on

[[Page H3907]]

one thing: the American public deserves to know the big picture, how
much it costs, who is paying, and the impacts of these programs so that
we can make the appropriate decisions for agriculture, for the
environment, and sound economic policy.
I understand there may be some question as to the acceptability of
this amendment, that it may be subject to a point of order and I
respect that, and I will be willing to withdraw my amendment. But I
hope that we can work with the members of this subcommittee to be able
to work to make sure that we have the information available to protect
the environment, to provide sound agricultural policy, and be able to
deal with our trade responsibilities in the international arena.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BONILLA. Is the gentleman going to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Sec. ____. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act shall be made available to any
person or entity that has been convicted of violating the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like the appropriators, if they would, to listen to my brief
remarks, and the other Members. We just celebrated a great holiday, the
independence of the United States of America; and right down here on
the Mall when the national symphony was performing in celebration of
our great democracy and republic, vendors were handing out souvenir
small, plastic American flags that were made in China. The national
symphony is performing, people are in Washington to celebrate this
great holiday, and the vendors are distributing small flags that I will
send over; I do not have them with me. This is ridiculous.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It gets right to the
point. Anybody that has violated our Buy American laws will not be
eligible to get money under the bill.
I would ask that it be approved, as it has been to other bills.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the distinguished chairman in his first term,
and I commend him for his work.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. We
support the amendment and would hope that we could move to a vote
quickly on this amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my distinguished colleague.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for proposing this
Buy American amendment to this bill as well as many other bills that he
has been successful in achieving this added language. I would not only
like to support the gentleman on this effort, but to work with him to
assure that both the letter and spirit of the law, as the gentleman has
been able to pass here regarding Buy American, are working in every
program of our government, let me point out, for example, the
Department of Defense's purchase of food commodities, should be
oriented toward U.S. farmers, U.S. produced commodities, not food
brokers that might acquire their product from foreign sources.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman and say I support
the Buy American Act, and congratulations to the gentleman for bringing
this Buy American amendment to America's attention.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
One of the reasons for the technicalities is that they say the Buy
American law does not deal with service contracts, and we are going to
address ourselves to that through the authorizing process. So the
gentlewoman is exactly correct.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
Add before the short title at the end the following new
section:
Sec. ____. Section 135(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by striking
``2000 crop year'' and inserting ``2000 and 2001 crop
years''.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I presume that nobody is going to oppose this amendment, except maybe
on a point of order. It is language that now exists over this past year
for American farmers, and I simply want to bring to the body's
attention that this amendment concerns a matter of fairness and equity
to American farmers.
Very simply, my amendment would maintain the number of farmers
eligible for the price support program that we have in the Federal
Government.

{time} 1545

We have a price support program that provides that if market prices
fall below a certain level for these programs' crops, someone is
eligible for an LDP, a loan deficiency payment, or a commodity
nonrecourse loan.
Under the provisions of the law, though, technically, only those
individuals that were enrolled in farm programs and designated their
program crop acreage back in the late 1980s are eligible for this kind
of support.
So what we did last year is allow every American farmer, those cattle
and livestock farmers, those dairy farmers that did not have program
crops and report them back in the 1980s, to be eligible for that same
kind of federal price support as those individual crop farmers that had
program crops.
We are basing our farm programs on antiquated crop history that was
established from 1986 to 1991. This amendment provides that those other
farmers that today are growing that corn, that rice, that cotton, the
soybeans, that corn, will still be eligible for the Federal Government
price support program.
It is a matter of fairness, and I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Latham), the deputy chairman, that the Senate has indicated they are
interested in putting this in the Senate version of their agricultural
appropriation bill. It is important that we, as quickly as possible,
tell the American farmers, that otherwise might not be eligible for
this kind of support help, that we intend to pass this amendment.
We had it in the chairman's mark of the appropriation bill
supplemental. That bill was changed with the Stenholm substitute. This
amendment needs to be accomplished. I would ask the leadership in their
efforts, when we

[[Page H3908]]

go to conference, if this is in the Senate bill, can we move ahead on
this amendment?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman from
Michigan's interest in this matter.
I understand there is strong bipartisan support to remedy this
inequity in our farm program laws. I support the gentleman's efforts to
accomplish this.
I am sorry that, because of the legislative nature of this amendment,
the bill before us today is not the appropriate vehicle for this
provision. However, I look forward to working with the gentleman in the
future on this problem, and if the provision is in the Senate bill, we
will consider this correction in our conference committee. I thank the
gentleman for his efforts.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the body's attention an amendment I
have prepared that concerns a matter of fairness and equity to American
farm policy. Very simply, my amendment would maintain the number of
farmers eligible for Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs) under language
included in last year's Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Crop
Insurance Reforms).
The explanation for this need is as follows: for farmers to be
eligible for LDP payments under the current farm bill, they must have
had their land enrolled in farm program acreage back in 1986-91 crop
years. This means that farmers that have decided to go into farming in
the past ten years have not been eligible to receive loans or LDP's
unless they have purchased farmland that was enrolled in the 1986-91
acreage. This would also include those farmers that did have acreage
enrolled at the inception of the base acreage allotments, but later
shifted acreage from another use into program crop production. For
instance, if a corn/soybean farmer that also grazes some land enrolled
in program acreage decides to shift that grazed acreage into corn/
soybean production, his new cropping acreage would not be eligible for
the Loan Deficiency Payment.
This problem was recognized last year and LDP eligibility was
expanded to include farmers not enrolled in program acreage--language
included in Crop Insurance legislation. However, this provision was
only for crop year 2000, and another legislative remedy is needed for
crop year 2001.
My amendment, which I have also introduced as a stand-alone bill,
H.R. 2089, would do just that. The idea of LDP eligibility equity has
garnered strong bipartisan support within the Ag Committee, and was
included in Chairman Combest's original mark for the 2001 Crop Year
Economic Assistance Act that was voted on earlier this week (H.R.
2213), but was narrowly eliminated along with all other fiscal year
2002 spending that was included in the mark.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that approximately 98.6
percent of program crop production is eligible for LDP payments. While
that number is significantly high and captures most commodity
producers, it is still unfair for the other 1.4 percent to be
ineligible simply because those farmers are not enrolled in farm
program base acreage. It is important that we enact this provision and
eliminate this loophole that places some farmers at a competitive
disadvantage. I urge members to vote for passage of this amendment so
that we may correct this problem.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. LATHAM. I reserve a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith) is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
Add before the short title at the end the following new
section:

Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to pay the salaries of
personnel of the Department of Agriculture who permit the
payment limitation specified in section 1001(2) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)) to be exceeded in
any manner (whether through payments in excess of such
limitation, permitting repayment of marketing loans at a
lower rate, the issuance of certificates redeemable for
commodities, or forfeiture of a loan commodity when the
payment limitation level is reached), except, in the case of
a husband and wife, the total amount of the payments
specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that they may
receive during the 2001 crop year may not exceed $150,000.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 28, 2001, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in this amendment because earlier I
had an indication from the Parliamentarian that this would be in order.
We added some language that apparently is now going over the line in
terms of legislating in an appropriation bill.
But let me just emphasize the importance of policy as we consider
this amendment. The question befor this body is should the huge, large
agricultural farm corporations get the most benefit from Federal
agricultural programs? This amendment reinstates the $75,000 limit for
payments.
Our agriculture programs, ever since we started these programs in the
1930s, have tended to benefit the large, and very large farmers, so in
part the large farmers have bought out the small farmers because they
have had the advantage in farm program payments.
My amendment, reinstates the $75,000 payment limitation on loan
deficiency payments and it makes it a real $75,000 limitation on these
producers. At the same time, and I would call this to the attention of
the ranking member and chairman, at the same time, this amendment
allows spouses of these farmers to be considered an equal partner in
the farm operation, in other words, be eligible for the $75,000 payment
limitation.
What we do now is make those spouses jump through, if you will,
bureaucratic hoops to become qualified. We require such action as
requiring the spouse to borrow money in their own name, put it into the
farm operation, and then they can be eligible as a separate partner.
This amendment says that married couples would have the $150,000
payment limitation.
Let me go little further on what this amendment really does.
Historically, net benefits from loan deficiency payments have been
capped at $75,000 per producer, but this limit was doubled in the bill
that went through on special orders a couple of weeks ago.
The increased payments to producers over the current $75,000 limit
are estimated to be over $350 million. The huge, giant farmers are
taking $350 million over and above the $75,000 limitation. This
benefits only the very largest farmers.
The average farm size in the U.S. is about 420 acres, but one would
have to raise 4,000 acres of corn at current prices to exceed or to go
over the $75,000 limitation. There are many large farm operations that
exceed 20,000 acres, so they are taking all of this extra money in and,
in effect, taking it away from the family farmer.
Amazingly, this flawed system has allowed payments over $1 million to
go to some of these farmers. Farmers that receive these large
subsidies, and the grain traders that profit from expanded production,
oppose this amendment. I think it is so important that we consider this
kind of policy in terms of focusing the benefits on the small- and
moderate-sized family farm operations.
This amendment accomplishes several things. It gives the spouse of a
farmer the same kind of considerations as a partner. It provides that
we hold to the $75,000 payment limitation, at a time when we are
considering being frugal in our spending so that we do not start
reaching into the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. It says,

[[Page H3909]]

let us save that $350 million that is spent on those huge farmers by
locking in the limit that would also apply to the nonrecourse loan and
the forfeiture provisions or the commodity certificates that are
offered to that farmer if they exceed the limitation.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge this body to consider the kind of
agricultural farm policy that we want for the future of American
agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment concerning payment limitations for
marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) to farmers, as
well as limits on benefits received through the USDA commodity
certificate program and nonrecourse loan forfeitures. This amendment
would cap payments to individual farmers from these programs at
$75,000.
Mr. Chairman, few people are aware that many of our farm commodity
programs, for all of their good intentions, are set up to disburse
payments with little regard to farm size. Often in our rush to provide
support for struggling farmers we overlook just where that support is
going.
The limit on price support payments to farmers was increased when we
passed H.R. 2213, the 2001 Crop Year Economic Assistance Act on June
26th. Historically, net benefits from loan deficiency payments and
marketing loan gains has been capped at $75,000 per farmer. However,
H.R. 2213, which passed under the suspension calendar and was not
subject to amendment, doubled the benefit cap to $150,000. Even this
limitation is exceeded when USDA authorizes a commodity certificate
program to pay farmers that reach the payment limit.
The increased costs to government by doubling the benefit cap from
the current $75,000 limit is estimated at over $50 million.
Furthermore, additional payments to large producers received through
the commodity certificate program are staggering--over $320 million in
crop year 2000 alone.
A Congressional Research Service report on commodity certificates
stated that, ``while purported to discourage commodity forfeitures,
certificates effectively serve to circumvent the payment limitation.''
Amazingly, this flawed system allowed a single farmer to receive
$1,201,677 in commodity support payments in 1999.
My amendment would simply restore a $75,000 limit on price support
payments to individual farmers--including benefits via commodity
certificates and loan forfeitures, but increase the limit to $150,000
for husband and wife farming operations. Currently spouses have to jump
through several bureaucratic hoops to qualify.
With increased spending a concern, along with the fact that the
additional benefits from the ``certificate'' program go to huge farm
operations, I urge your consideration of my amendment. Boosting farm
program payment limitations disproportionately skews federal
agriculture support to the largest of producers, while doing nothing to
alleviate the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized farmers.
Let's do more to focus benefits on small and moderate size family farm
operations.

usda statistics

Average acreage where $75,000 LDP payment is reached (crop year
2000): Corn, 1886 acres; soybeans, 2116 acres; wheat, 4,067 acres;
cotton, 2,976 acres; and rice, 404 acres.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) insist on his
point of order?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. If
there are no other speakers, I would make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman withdrawing the amendment?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am not withdrawing the amendment. I question
the point of order. It does not legislate, if I may speak.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Latham).

Point of Order

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from
the Chair.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, hoping the Chair is open to
discussion and debate on this issue, I would call to the Chairman's
attention to the fact that we simply say in this amendment, ``None of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be
used to pay the salaries of personnel of the Department of
Agriculture'' to accomplish these certain purposes.
This type of amendment has been put in former appropriation bills, so
I would like a more detailed explanation from the Chair if he rules
this amendment out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment in the last phrase includes
language imposing a new duty. The amendment therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. For an additional amount for the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out section 311 of the Older Americans
Act of 1965, and the amount otherwise provided by this Act
for ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments'' is hereby reduced by, $10,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased for the second year in a row to offer this
important bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert). Unfortunately, the gentleman from New York cannot be here as
he is on his way down to the White House, but we have his full support
for this amendment.
Our amendment adds $10 million to USDA's nutrition program for
elderly meal programs, known as senior citizen meals and Meals on
Wheels. This amendment offsets this additional spending by reducing by
$10 million from the agriculture building and facilities and rental
payments.
Our amendment has the support of the Meals on Wheels Association of
Michigan, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services
Program, the TREA Senior Citizens League, the National Council on the
Aging, and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
I am sure all of us have met and spoken with seniors in our
districts. I am sure they have told us how much they have come to
depend upon the senior meals they receive, be it Meals on Wheels or
meals at their senior centers.
Senior meal providers receive funding for the meals they distribute
to seniors under the Older Americans Act through several avenues:
first, through private donations; second, through the Department of
Health and Human Services; and third, through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture meal reimbursements.
Let me explain why a funding increase for USDA's nutrition program
for the elderly program is so important. Unlike funding from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, which is distributed to
the States based on population, the USDA reimbursement to States is
according to the amount of meals served at each senior center. The
money they receive is actually based on meals served at the senior
center.
Our amendment is the best way to ensure that proper distribution of
these funds are going to the centers where they prepare the meals.
Why do we need more money? Why are we back for a second year in a
row? Why does this amendment go above the President's request? As our
chart indicates here, if we take a look at this chart, according to the
Administration on Aging, 253 million meals were served in 2000, but the
agency admits that this year the estimates will be 291 million. That is
a 15 percent increase over last year.

[[Page H3910]]

Even though we increased the funding last year for the meals, it is
not going to be able to cover the dramatic rise in demand we see for
senior meals. So the President's budget request, and the good work by
the committee, it was good work, would be short of what we need just to
cover our basic costs.
What our amendment does, the Stupak-Boehlert amendment will allow
this important funding to reflect the inflation and the increase in
demand for these meals. We can help senior meal providers that so
desperately need assistance in these times of high gas prices, high
cost of meals, and the increasing number of seniors who have come to
depend on these meals, even in these good economic times.
I offer this amendment because of conversations I had last year with
one such meal provider and about the plight of his agency. Bill Dubord
and Sally Kidd of the Community Action Agency in Escanaba, Michigan, in
my northern Michigan District, told me that their agency every year is
having a tougher and tougher time keeping its head above water to
provide senior meals.
I am sure all of us have heard similar stories as we travel about
senior centers. According to a recent study, there are now an average
of 85 people on waiting lists for home-delivered meal services, and are
on the waiting list for an average of 2.6 months.
The bottom line is, our senior meal providers need more money to
provide the meals. Increased funding will give them more money to
provide more meals. More meals means more senior health. It is health.
It is really that simple.
To pay for the amendment, as I have stated earlier, we have taken $10
million of a $187 million budget from the Department of Agriculture's
building and facilities and rental payments. I fully recognize the
importance of maintaining the Department's facilities. However, it is
simply a necessity. We need to provide for our seniors.

{time} 1600

When my colleagues are casting their votes, I hope they will think of
the seniors they have met back home and the senior providers they have
spoken with. Cast a vote for them and support this Stupak-Boehlert
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just congratulate the gentleman on the
amendment. I rise to simply state that I am not opposed to his
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to seek the
time in opposition even though the gentleman is not in opposition?
Mr. LATHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just simply once again state I am not opposed to the gentleman's
amendment, in fact support it, and I would hope we could quickly move
to a vote on the issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized
for 6 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time on this important amendment to increase funding for the elderly
food program and to take funds that may be available from rental
payments that USDA does not have to make because it no longer is
occupying certain facilities.
Without question, across our country the costs of even paying utility
bills are rising significantly for seniors. Electric bills, gas bills
in the Midwest, for example, have just risen at astronomical rates. And
any way we can find to help seniors make it through this year and next
I think are worthy of consideration. This is certainly one of those at
the very basic level of decent nutrition.
We know that in many of our senior feeding programs, in fact, the
programs are oversubscribed. I have been surprised in my own district
on related programs, such as the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program, where seniors are allowed to use food coupons to purchase
fruits, vegetables, herbs and so forth, the enrollment in the program
is just growing exponentially because people are pinching every penny
because of other expenditures that they have had.
So I think we really have to look carefully at any ways we can move
food to the seniors' tables, and these particular meals programs
operated through our area offices on aging are eminently successful
across the country. I know in many cases I have sat in my own district
and I have watched seniors being asked to contribute money in little
envelopes to help pay for these meals at these senior centers to offset
rising costs when they have very little to give anyway.
So I would say to the gentleman that I think he has a very worthy
amendment this year. He was successful in leading our country last year
with a similar amendment to increase funding for the program, and the
number of meals, according to the charts that he has provided, have
gone up. So it has been successful.
Certainly no person in America, no senior in this country should go
without decent nutrition. We know that the poorest people in our
country are women over the age of 85, and many of them are too weak
sometimes to even get to the senior centers, so we have home-delivered
meals being taken across our country in various neighborhoods.
Sometimes the only contact that that senior has are with the person who
delivers the noon meal.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), whose
district actually spans the entire northern region of Michigan, who
understands the problems of rural isolation of people in poverty and
thank him for leading us all. And I am sure that the USDA, within its
various accounts, can find the funds to cover the gentleman's proposed
expansion, and I just want to compliment the gentleman for doing what
is right, what is moral, and what we have the eminent capability to do
in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I ask our colleagues to support the Stupak amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, in
closing, to thank the committee and the subcommittee and the ranking
member for their support of this amendment. I would like to once again
point out that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wanted to be
here but he was called away to the White House. He has been of great
assistance to us, not only in drafting and working this amendment, but
in addressing the concerns of seniors throughout this country.
We thought the debate on this bill would go a little longer and we
could do our amendment later when he got back from the White House.
Unfortunately, he could not be here, but I wanted to recognize his
efforts as well as that of the committee in helping us bring forth this
amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Stupak-
Boehlert amendment to increase funding for the USDA's Nutrition Program
for the Elderly by $10 million. This vital program helps provide over 3
million senior citizens with nutritionally sound meals in their homes
through the meal-on-wheels programs, or in senior centers, churches,
and in my district a few fire halls through the congregate meals
program.
I would venture a guess that almost every single Member of this House
has visited a congregate meal site or volunteered to ride along with a
meal-on-wheels program. I want to remind everyone that these programs
are important to our communities and that the need is quite real.
Participants in this program are disproportionately poor. 33% of
congregate meal participants and 50% of home delivered meal
participants have incomes below the poverty level. A majority of meal-
on-wheels participants live alone and have twice as many physical
impairments as the average elderly person. The Nutrition Program not
only feeds seniors in need but also allows those seniors to remain
connected to their communities. Congregate meal sites give
participating seniors the opportunity to socialize with members of the
community. And Meals-on-Wheels volunteers deliver meals to frail, sick,
home bound seniors most whom do not leave their homes even once a week.
Let me take just a moment to share with you the comments of some of
the congregate meal program participants from the Town of New Harford
Senior Center located in my home town.
Juanita, age 76, says: ``Meals are important. I come every day.''

[[Page H3911]]

Margaret, age 78, says: ``The meals are very nutritional. I like
food! It helps me feel good and want to be active.''
Helen, age 91, says: ``I enjoy coming here for the meals and the
company. There is always something new that I hear and learn. The food,
I enjoy immensely.''
Carlton, age 88, says: ``It is a chance to get out and enjoy the
company of seniors that makes my day!''
In order to fund this needed increase for senior meals, the Stupak-
Boehlert amendment offsets $10 million for the Agriculture Building and
Facilities account. I do not doubt the need for these funds. But the
number of seniors needing nutrition services continues to grow and we
must make a larger commitment to ensure that Nutrition Program for the
Elderly is properly funded.
The Stupak-Boehlert amendment is endorsed by the Meals on Wheels
Association of America, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging
Services Programs, the TREA Senior Citizen League, the National Council
on the Aging, and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
This amendment represents a small investment in a program that helps to
fight the malnutrition and isolation far too many needy senior citizens
face.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stupak-Boehlert amendment. Vote
to support our nation's seniors.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Weiner

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Weiner:
Insert before the short title the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to
make any payment to producers of wool or producers of mohair
for the 2000 or 2001 marketing years under section 814 of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by
Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by offering my sincere thanks to
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla), and his staff for all the assistance they provided, as well
as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and her staff. I would also
like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who are also joining me in
offering this amendment.
I stand as an urban member, someone who represents Brooklyn and
Queens, the garden spot of the five boroughs perhaps, but not exactly a
bastion of agriculture. But I am someone who strongly supports farm
bills when they are offered. I have never voted against one and plan to
vote for this one with enthusiasm. But just as during the 1980s and a
period thereafter, as we have sought to make government programs more
efficient and many social and urban programs were made more efficient
by the actions of this body, we have an opportunity today to end what
is quite literally a fleecing of America.
The wool and mohair program, which will cost in the area of some $20
million to the United States taxpayer next year, is a program that has
been ended by this body and now revived by the President with the
assistance of this bill. My amendment seeks to eliminate the subsidy.
First of all, let me explain that this is a program that has, I
guess, the agriculture version of mission creep. It was started out in
the 1930s and 1940s as an effort to protect the strategically needed
resource, that is wool; to make sure that wool was available to be used
in our military uniforms. Well, those of my colleagues who serve on the
Committee on Armed Services recognize that since the 1950s or so it has
been removed as a strategically necessary resource because we do not
make uniforms out of wool any more. In fact, I have a uniform here that
is made out of 100 percent cotton. And all of the uniforms are made out
of either cotton or nylon.
So once that rationale was removed, then it became an emergency
subsidy intended to get the industry over a hump that it faced in the
early 1990s. When it was clear that the program was not as effective
and perhaps a little more wasteful than some would want, this body
ended the program in 1993. Now there is an effort to revive it again
under the rubric that we need to be able to deal with foreign
competition and the only way to do it is with this subsidy.
The second thing about this subsidy is that it is not cheap. We have
throughout the 1990s provided more than a billion dollars to this
industry. Just last year it was in the neighborhood of $10 million. It
is not really clear where next year's number will end up, but it is
somewhere in the range of $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million.
It is also very clear from our history with this program that it is
not helping the family farmer. According to a study done in 1993, the
average payment is some $44, though there are many who get much more
than that. The top 1 percent who benefit from this program, including
Mr. Sam Donaldson, gets in the neighborhood of $100,000 or more. So the
idea this is something that is helping to augment the family farm is
simply not borne out by the facts.
Fourth, as a matter of pure economics, this program is a failure.
Wool has seen a price drop since the reinstitution of this programming
from some 63 percent. Why are we seeing that? It is because most
likely, in combining with the subsidy, we are doing nothing to control
supply. So we are continuing to sheer more and more animals, more and
more stockpiles are building up, the supply keeps on growing and
growing and growing, and the price remains depressed. There is nothing
in this program that does anything to change that behavior.
But perhaps the most damning economic line in this whole issue is
that the price of mohair, which is about 20 percent of this program,
has increased about 88 percent since 1995. If there was any better
evidence that it is market forces and not this subsidy that is having
an impact on the price and, therefore, the success of the farmers, it
is that fact; that wool and mohair are bunched together in this
program. And one is seeing a dramatic drop in price and one is seeing a
dramatic increase in price. The program simply does not make sense from
that perspective. If anything, if we are trying to drive up the price
on some level, then at least mohair should be dropped from the program.
The final irony is that there is a greater subsidy for mohair in this
bill than there is for wool.
I would make one final point. There was a period of time between the
time this program died and then like Frankenstein that it resurrected
itself, and that was the year 1997 and 1998. And if we look at the
statistics as to how the industry did in the last year we had the
subsidy and the first year that it returned, the industry got worse,
not better. There was a reduction in wool, in wool production, of about
11 percent. There was an 11 percent reduction in the profits to wool
farmers in 1996. And when the subsidy ended, they actually had smaller
losses of only about 3 percent. The same is true in the mohair
industry. Mohair prices and mohair jobs actually reduced when we had
the subsidy and then came back slightly when we got rid of the subsidy.
I would ask my colleagues to consider very frankly why it is that we
have these programs in general. All of us want to be able to support
farm programs. I believe the farm bill, as I said from the outset, is a
worthy document we should support. Very often I am calling upon my
colleagues to support purely urban things. But if someone comes to me
and says, you know, this program that operates in the urban centers,
like many of the housing programs of the 1980s, it simply is not
working, I believe it is incumbent on Members that have those interests
at heart to try to weed out the waste. This is, the wool and mohair
subsidy program, is simply a waste of taxpayer money.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3912]]

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would first like to ask my colleague from New York if he would
answer a question.
Has the gentleman ever visited a wool house or visited any of the
areas where the sheep and goat raisers exist?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. I would have to answer no, but that is true of most of
the food products I eat every day. I have not visited where they were
farmed either.
Mr. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time for another question, does the
gentleman also oppose the apple program to deal with the hardships that
apple producers are currently facing in the State of New York? Does the
gentleman also oppose that?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would be happy to answer that question.
When we offer in this body emergency programs to deal with exigent
circumstances, we expect that that is not going to be in perpetuity.
That is why if I were in this body, I would not have opposed the first
time this emerged as an emergency subsidy.
So I would say I support the judgment of the chairman. If there is an
emergency situation existing in the apple industry, I would clearly
support it. If the gentleman came to me for 10 years in a row and said
it is an emergency because now we are getting competition from
applesauce manufacturers, that is why we need to keep it going, I would
probably have reservations regardless of the State.
Mr. BONILLA. So the short answer would be no, the gentleman does not
oppose the apple money in the bill, and it is not a designation of an
emergency line item.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if the apple
program is, in the judgment of the chairman, a worthy program to help,
I would imagine it is a program that is designed, and it is one that I
am not nearly as expert on as the gentleman is, but I imagine it is
designed to deal with this temporary circumstance and not to exist into
perpetuity; is that correct?
Mr. BONILLA. Well, the program was proposed by one of the gentleman's
colleagues from New York, and that is why I am asking a question. It is
a hardship that exists on apple growers in New York and in other parts
of the country that is in this bill. It is not an emergency line item
either.
I am just trying to draw the comparison that hardships exist in
different parts of the country and it is interesting that the gentleman
does not oppose the $150 million apple line item in here, and there was
money for apple producers last year as well. So there are continuing
programs on occasion that do help producers that are doing all they can
to pay their bills back home that are not part of permanent law.
The Wool Act, as the gentleman knows, was eliminated several years
ago, I believe it was 6 years ago, and is not in permanent law. The
program that the gentleman is trying to remove from the bill today is
one that is not permanent law either. We are just trying to assist
producers out there now that have gone through some very difficult
times.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I guess the
concern that some of us have that are concerned about this program, and
to use the apple example, if we were to stand here in 1950 or 1945 and
say, you know what, we need to defend the apple producers because the
apple seeds are a vital resource, and then it turned out apple seeds
were not that important; and then we come back and said it is the apple
core that is very important; and then a few years later we killed the
program because it is no longer worthy, I think the point I am trying
to make is this is a program that has been tried, it has been offered
several different justifications, it has failed by most economic
sources I can look to, it has not been successful, and Congress did the
right thing in pulling the plug on it.
I guess I would agree with the gentleman that the same standard
should be used for the apple program or any other program, sir.
Mr. BONILLA. Well, let me again summarize it, and I do not want to
put words in the gentleman's mouth, but clearly the gentleman does not
oppose a program for example in his State that is a big line item in
this bill, but is yet trying to remove this program from this bill.
Let me point out some statistics, and perhaps the gentleman can
identify with some hardships that exist currently for wool and mohair
producers. Since 1993, 16,000 family farms and ranches have left the
sheep industry. The U.S. breeding herd has dropped by over 20 percent.
Lamb imports have increased over 50 percent, and it is currently 20
percent of the domestic market. U.S. wool production has dropped to
record lows, and imports have increased by 11 percent.

{time} 1615

The Nation's largest wool textile company filed for bankruptcy. Wool
prices in 2000 were the lowest in 30 years.
We in Congress do the best we possibly can for whatever part of the
agriculture industry that exists around the country that is suffering
hardship. There is nothing more American and traditional in this
country than to try to preserve family farms and ranches; and there are
many, many programs in this bill that do just that, including the one I
pointed out that was in the gentleman's home State as well, which he
supports.
All we are saying is whether we are talking about apples, corn,
cotton, tobacco, wheat, soybeans or whatever, all of these are part of
the American fabric. Wool and mohair producers are part of the American
fabric that we do not want to see become extinct. So for that reason I
stand in strong opposition to this amendment today.
As a nation, we can no longer afford to arbitrarily attack
agriculture because it has the fewest voices representing it. Less than
2% of the American population is involved with agriculture, yet we feed
and clothe all of America and most of the world!
What I find even more strange is that the amendment singles out a
total of less than $40 million in much needed assistance to wool and
mohair producers. Yet the sponsors have no problem with the rest of the
$5.5 billion dollars that Congress just approved for corn, cotton,
tobacco, wheat and soy bean producers. If they did, I assume they would
try to kill that relief as well.
Yet, those commodities have a much larger voice and support base in
Congress so I guess we'll just go after the little guys. And they are
small producers. . . .
Twenty-one percent of the 12,825 payments went to sheep ranchers in
the Navajo Nation. I'm sure that the gentleman would not even begin to
insinuate that the Navajo people are wealthy corporate ranchers.
This amendment would hit them harder than any other group of
individuals.
Mr. Chairman . . ., many of the statistics the gentleman is using do
not even relate to the emergency payments they are trying to stop. They
refer to the old wool program which ended in 1995.
Mr. Chairman . . ., I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, it's the wrong amendment, the wrong time and the wrong
place. Oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think the Congress has been a little
sheepish when it comes to reducing wasteful programs, especially during
times when we have had a Federal surplus.
I would just make the point that Congress did end the wool and mohair
subsidy. It was phased out in 1994. I think that was a good thing.
Subsequent to that taxpayers did save about $200 million a year. That
was good.
However, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, this subsidy came back in
the fiscal 1999 omnibus appropriations bill and again in the fiscal
2000 agriculture appropriations bill. Now wool and mohair producers
have become eligible to receive these payments again.
I do oppose the subsidy for apple producers. I think that is another
rotten apple in this agriculture measure that is before us. But let me
make the observation that while in the old program

[[Page H3913]]

farmers were paid a subsidy for the wool and mohair they sold, in this
new program, if I understand it right, the way it works now is the
farmers do not need to attempt to sell their goods necessarily. The
Agricultural Department will pay farmers by the pound just to produce
mohair. Under the new program not only can farmers make money without
selling their crop, they can make money without trying to market it, if
I read it correctly.
In 1999, taxpayers provided wool and mohair farmers, I believe, 10.3
million in subsidy. As explained, the original concept of this had to
do with our national security. It had to do with the fact that military
uniforms were wool. But the reality is that in 1959 they changed to
synthetic fabrics and cotton. That is the situation today.
I just think it is time to end this waste of taxpayers' dollars. I
think it is time to shear the wool and mohair subsidy and stop the
fleecing of tax dollars.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The prior speaker said we are a little sheepish. I do not want him to
pull the wool over the eyes of the American public in this Congress.
You have to be in the business to receive the help in opposition to
what he stated in his testimony.
The farmers and ranchers of the United States that produce wool and
mohair are suffering the same crisis in agriculture as producers of
other crops. Sheep producers pay the same increased cost of fuel as the
grain farmer and are suffering undue hardships because of the value of
foreign currency to the U.S. dollar in unfair trade practices.
Loopholes remain open that allow foreign products access to U.S.
markets through Mexico and Canada.
Producers in the United States continue to produce some of the
world's finest wool and mohair, and yet for many producers wool prices
do not even cover the cost of shearing the sheep. As a result, short-
term financial relief through a market loss assistance program is vital
to U.S. producers. Market loss assistance has had a positive impact for
producers in all 50 States.
I am in the cashmere goat production business, which is not under
this particular amendment. I receive no financial assistance. But I can
state that we are trying to help people within agriculture to diversify
the income on their farms or ranches so they do not have to be
dependent upon Federal help.
This amendment goes against every principle of trying to help people
in agriculture help themselves. We do not want to be dependent on the
Federal Government; but until this government gets a handle on energy
costs, on import problems, and understands that, unless this government
steps forward and solves many of the problems that are creating the
crisis in the Federal farm communities of this Nation, we will continue
to have to come in and look to the Federal Government for relief.
We cannot let the people that want to destroy agriculture get our
goat. I urge the Members to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, let me address some of the points that have come up by
the very distinguished chairman about the inconsistency in his mind of
my supporting a program that is in New York. Well, I also support
programs that are in Mississippi, Montana and North Carolina and all
across this country because I support the bill. I think it is a good
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask both the chairman and members of the
committee and all of my colleagues, if we had a program that was in
place under various guises since 1938, and still we were seeing that
the marketplace was not responding to the subsidy, that we were still
hemorrhaging market share, and still losing the jobs and had fewer and
fewer heads of sheep that were being lost, why would you deem it to be
a successful program?
Can anyone argue by any measure that it is a successful program? Is
it successful for the average farmer that will get $44? The gentleman
from Montana said we need to keep it in place because of the strength
of the dollar or because of trade disputes. We will add those to the
list of justifications and reasons that have been growing since 1938.
Let me reiterate the statistics of this. 1993 we had a subsidy. There
was a 5.2 percent reduction in wool production. 1994 we had a subsidy,
11 percent loss. 1995 we had a subsidy, 8 percent loss. 1996 we had a
subsidy, 11 percent loss. 1997 we did not have a subsidy, we only had a
3 percent loss.
Perhaps there was something about the marketplace in 1997, perhaps it
was the Democratic Presidency, but the fact of the matter is there
seems to be no correlation between the subsidy and the success of the
program.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is reasonable for Members of Congress who
support ag programs to say this one is a bust. It is not working. I
think we have to make those distinctions both in agriculture programs,
and I would say this to my most fervent colleague in the urban areas,
we have to make those determinations with urban areas as well. If a
colleague from an urban area said we need to continue the subsidy for
mass transit for all of those coal-powered subways, I would say there
are no coal-powered subways.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 13 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas as the chairman of the
subcommittee has the right to close.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we only have one additional speaker, so I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a great deal to add on the importance of
preserving what I believe will turn out to be on the final vote on this
bill a continuation of the very strong urban-rural coalition that
exists in this House. I and many of my colleagues are going to be
supporting the agriculture bill with enthusiasm. We recognize the
matrix that exists between farm programs that are miles away from our
communities and the importance that they play to our economies and our
communities.
All of that being said, it should never be a substitute for us making
wise decisions about what programs work and what programs do not work.
In 1993, this body took several steps to reduce the size of government
to make thing more efficient.
In 1993, after years of being hammered on television shows which were
frequently unfair about a fleecing of America, we finally decided to
see what we could do about ending this program. The program ended; and,
unfortunately, there continued to be a decline in the production of
wool and mohair in this country. That decline slowed, and since then we
have had an increase in mohair prices.
There has been an 88 percent increase since 1995, yet we continue the
subsidy. The subsidy for mohair is 40 cents, as opposed to a 20-cent
subsidy for wool, despite the fact that we say we are trying to help
the family farmer. Many more people are producing wool. They are in a
much more dire situation, yet they get half the subsidy of those who
produce mohair.
We still have the terrible imbalance that exists in this program
between the average farmer who gets $44 and the top 1 percent that get
over $100,000 each.
Mr. Chairman, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the chairman, who has
done a terrific job on this bill, in saying that there are many areas
that we have to step in and provide assistance to. But if we are
standing here in 38 years, God willing, or 50 years, God willing, and
we are debating the apple program, the tobacco program or the corn
program, or any of the programs that may or may not be in this bill,
and if we are still having the same problems as we had from 50 years
ago, believe me, I would be the first to say we should eliminate that
program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to eliminate the wool and mohair
subsidy, save our constituents 10 to 15 to $20 million; and even more
important, end

[[Page H3914]]

a program that has long since proven itself to be ineffective. More
importantly than that, show that we understand and have the ability to
separate a program that truly does work from those that do not.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we work in a funny place. It helps if one
knows the facts; it really helps if one understands the facts. But if
one neither knows nor understands the facts, it causes a great deal of
confusion.
Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the ``Dear Colleague'' letter that
went out. It says this subsidy began during World War II and the Korean
War, and obviously it is no longer necessary because the military does
not need this wool anymore. This is not the original program for the
military in World War II. This is an economic disaster, market loss
assistance program, which was put into place.
Our agricultural producers that raise sheep and mohair are suffering
the same economic consequences as everybody else is in the agricultural
industry; and to pick them out and say we are not going to help them,
we are not going to have an assistance program for them and we are
going to for everybody else is wrong. This is not the old program put
into place during the war.
Mr. Chairman, the other part of the ``Dear Colleague'' says, ``The
average farmer received $44 for this subsidy. The largest factory
farms, representing 1 percent of all growers, received 25 percent of
the subsidy.'' That is blatantly not true. There are no facts which
support that. To support this, the largest producer would have to raise
62,000 sheep. There are no producers that large.

{time} 1630

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If I can just address the remarks of the previous speaker who was not
here earlier, that is exactly my point, that the program that we had
since 1938 has evolved so many times; yet we continue to find another
justification for it. We say, well, it was because we needed the
uniforms; well, now we need an emergency in the 1990s; well, now it is
to compete with foreign competitors; well, now it is to make up for the
loss in the strength of the dollar.
The fact remains that that is the definition of a program that ain't
working. If you have a program since 1938, if you keep changing the
name and changing the justification and still the facts remain the
same, that the decline in the industry domestically has been unfettered
by these programs. In fact, I earlier read a statistic that I will
repeat for the gentleman, that the year that the program went out of
effect for 2 years, the industry did better. It did better. The losses
were smaller in 1997 than they were in 1996 in both wool and mohair.
If you want to find a program that works, you say, here is what the
subsidy did. I defy anyone in this Chamber to point to me a success
story from this program. Tell me one year that this program has been in
effect that there is a single farmer that got $44 on the average, a
single farmer that said, oh, I got my 44 bucks.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know where he got the
average of $44 per farmer, because we cannot find anywhere where that
information comes from. In fact, it comes to about $800 per farmer from
our information. And the information that he suggests that 1 percent of
those sheep producers got 25 percent of the payments is just blatantly
false.
Mr. WEINER. I will be glad, reclaiming my time, to give the gentleman
the source for that. That was the 1993 National Performance Review
performed by the office of Vice President Gore, which was the rationale
for a bill that came to this floor providing for greater efficiency in
government that ended this program.
Mr. SIMPSON. So these are decade-old figures that he is quoting to
us, 8 years, from 1993?
Mr. WEINER. I have been quoting numbers out the yingyang today, but
which one is the gentleman referring to?
Mr. SIMPSON. Any ones that he understands.
Mr. WEINER. That should narrow it down.
No, anything after 1993 obviously did not come from that study.
Anything after 1993 came from the Agricultural Statistical Service,
sir.
Mr. SIMPSON. That is interesting because they did not have any
information for us.
Mr. WEINER. I will be glad to provide it for the gentleman. But one
thing, and I would yield to anyone, since I have a couple of moments
left, anyone that can point to a year the subsidy was in place that it
did anything to reverse the trend. The trend has been consistent right
along. The only time there has been a blip in the trend was 1997 and
1998 when the program was phased out momentarily. Then the losses were
reduced. They did not gain, but the losses were reduced.
So the argument for a program is not simply that I came up with a new
rationale for it. I could do that for any program. The argument has to
be, here is how it worked. And we have not seen any demonstration that
it has worked.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the
Committee on Agriculture, a hero to agriculture, and someone who is
going to tie all this up in a little package for us at the conclusion
of this debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 12 minutes.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
In light of the last exchange, I am often reminded but never more so
than this afternoon on this amendment of the late Will Rogers' quote
when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much,
it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.''
That is the problem with this amendment. The gentleman from New York
and the gentleman from California are still attacking a program that
was eliminated in 1994. They keep referring and all of these letters
that we get from various groups keep talking about the wool and mohair
program like it is still here. It was eliminated in 1994. Even the
money the gentleman is talking about for striking is not even in the
bill we are discussing today. It is in the emergency bill that passed
the House Committee on Agriculture and this body to provide assistance
to wool and mohair producers.
Now, this gentleman stood on this floor in 1994 and opposed the
elimination of the wool and mohair program because we believed it would
do damage to an industry that we did not believe was ready to be
eliminated because of unfair foreign competition. We lost. I lost. The
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California won that
amendment. We predicted the demise of the wool and mohair industry.
And, guess what? Here in 2001, we have 25,000 less wool producers in
the United States. They are gone. The gentleman from New York said
there is no supply reduction. I would guarantee you there has been a
supply reduction. Production has gone down in the United States; 25,000
producers are gone. We have eliminated 70 percent of the mohair
producers. They are gone, thanks to the philosophy of the gentleman
from New York.
Now, we might say, Well, that is the way it should be. Well, in April
of 1999, the United States International Trade Commission determined
that the domestic lamb industry suffered from extremely low prices and
a flood of imports which constitutes a substantial cause of threat of
serious injury to the domestic lamb industry.
In July of 1999 because of the commission's finding, President
Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 7208 establishing a tariff
rate quota on lamb meat for a 3-year adjustment period. The 3-year
adjustment period was established so the domestic sheep industry could
recover from unfair trade. Unfair trade.
Now, we have accomplished what this body wanted to accomplish with
the elimination of the wool and mohair program. It is gone. Now what
some of us are interested in doing is trying to

[[Page H3915]]

assist those wool and mohair producers that believe that they can
compete in the international marketplace if their government would
stand shoulder to shoulder with them as just this year the European
Union will spend $2 billion, that is with a B, subsidizing their wool
industry.
Now, I would ask anyone in this body that represents any interest,
whether it be agricultural, airplanes, anything that you are
manufacturing in this country, if your competitor is spending $2
billion and we are spending $16.9 million, why is that excessive? What
is it that we are doing that has brought this amendment to the floor
today to suggest that by trying to stand with an industry that is
trying to survive in the marketplace, in the marketplace now, not with
subsidies. The old program cost $200 million a year. We are providing
$16.9 million, exactly like we are doing for apples, for cotton, for
wheat. That is all that is being done. Not in this bill, but in some
other bill. Since 1999, depressed wool prices. In 1995 wool was selling
for $1 a pound. Today it is 33 cents a pound. That is in constant
dollars. Real dollars. Yet you stand on the floor today and say there
has been no market reaction, that somehow we are doing something that
is unfairly subsidizing the wool producers? Come on.
We have a letter from the American Textile Manufacturers Institute
saying, ``Please do not be misled into thinking that the money for wool
and mohair producers is actually a continuation or revival of funding
provided by the Wool Act which Congress eliminated in the 1990s.''
That is the truth. The gentleman from New York and the gentleman from
California have taken some other individuals who have no knowledge
whatsoever of the industry and have suggested that somehow we are
putting the wool and mohair back into place. All we are trying to do,
in another bill, at another time, in another place, is saying to those
wool and mohair producers who have survived the elimination of the Wool
and Mohair Act that we want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and
we want to give you a little assistance, and it is a very little
assistance, and we are struggling now in the Committee on Agriculture
to come up with a program that will hopefully give them the opportunity
to compete in the marketplace, as the gentleman from New York's
rhetoric has suggested; but his facts are so far off base that I know
the gentleman did not mean to misstate to this House what he has stated
over and over again today. But I believe he has been misled.
For that reason, I state the Weiner-Royce amendment is misguided,
inconsistent with the commission's findings, the commission's findings,
not the House Committee on Agriculture. The International Trade
Commission in looking at the results of the elimination of the wool and
mohair program suggested that we ought to do something to stand with
our producers, and we have been doing that and the Committee on
Agriculture and others who have a little more knowledge about the
industry, and I say this respectfully because I know the gentleman did
not mean to misstate.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I have
questions for the gentleman because he is much more expert at this than
I am. But the statistics on the production of wool bear out certain
trends; and one is that during the years that the previous, using his
words, the previous wool and mohair subsidy, although was identical but
for all intents and purposes we are paying farmers based on how much
wool and mohair they shear, a certain amount, go warehouse it or sell
it, is there anything in the trend to show that the years that the
subsidy was in place were good for farmers or better than anything in
the period that it was out of place?
Mr. STENHOLM. I take my time back. There he goes again. He keeps
referring to the old program. It is gone. I am not standing here today
defending the wool and mohair program of 1994. I fought for that then.
I believed it was in the best interest. We lost. We lost. It is gone.
He keeps talking about what used to be. I am talking about what is. And
what is today is a $16.9 million program that is designed to help those
who have survived. Twenty-five thousand wool producers are gone, out of
business, eliminated. Seventy percent of our mohair producers are gone,
eliminated, financially.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman would indulge me then in his experience
with the last program. We had a subsidy that he supported. He said
earlier in his statement that as a result of the victors in eliminating
the program, there has been a dramatic decline. Is that borne out
anywhere in the statistics?
Mr. STENHOLM. Sure it is. Absolutely. I reclaim my time. Twenty-five
thousand less wool producers. The gentleman is not listening. In 1995,
we had 5,000 mohair producers. In the year 2001, we had 1,400. That is
a 70 percent reduction. They are gone.
Mr. WEINER. Unfortunately, the problem with that reasoning is that
they hemorrhaged worse during the last wool and mohair subsidy program.
Mr. STENHOLM. Wrong.
Mr. WEINER. I can provide the gentleman with the numbers, of the
number of sheep and goats being farmed in this country. 1992, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 we lost during every one of those
years. But we lost less during the years there was no subsidy,
irrespective of whether it is wool and mohair 1, 2, 3 or 5.
Mr. STENHOLM. Again I reclaim my time because the gentleman is
stating something that is completely erroneous.
I conclude my remarks to my colleagues today by saying, please oppose
this amendment. It should not even be on this bill. The money he is
talking about is in the other bill. That is where we ought to be
discussing this. But when you start looking at what we are trying to
do, and we will have plenty to say about that when the farm bill comes
up, what we are trying to do with the money he is trying to eliminate
is to stand and give a helping hand to the remaining wool and mohair
producers, trying to come up with some new ideas in the marketplace in
which we can survive.
The gentleman from New York would just say, Adios. We don't give a
rip about that. We just think you ought to compete in the international
marketplace. I ask you again: How could any wool producer in the United
States with $16.9 million total support that the Congress is giving
them compete with the European Union that is putting in $2 billion?
Let us talk about Australia. He pooh-poohed a minute ago the idea
that the value of dollar and currency values had anything to do with
this. The Australians have an advantage in cotton and in wool of 50
percent because the value of the Australian dollar is 50 percent of the
United States dollar.
I ask you a simple question: if you are selling wool, and we are
selling it for 33 cents today, way below what it costs to produce. The
Australians are getting twice that much, 66 cents, just the value of
their currency. That to me is a justification for the expenditure of
$16.9 million of our taxpayer money attempting to help our wool
producers, exactly like we are doing it for apples and exactly like we
are doing it for wheat and corn and soybeans and rice and all of the
other commodities.
That is why I ask and I commend the chairman of the committee and
others who have participated today, I believe that this is clearly an
amendment that needs to be soundly defeated and let us get on with the
passing of this bill that the committee has worked so diligently on.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Chabot). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Royce:
Insert before the short title the following new section:

[[Page H3916]]

Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to award any new
allocations under the market access program or to pay the
salaries of personnel to award such allocations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, June 28, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in a true market economy, advertising is a function of
the private sector. It should not be in the public sphere. The public
in my view should not be forced to subsidize corporations.

{time} 1645

This is a philosophical point but it goes to the question of this
Market Access Program. Let me make the point that the Market Access
Program is a leftover product of two previously failed USDA programs.
One was the market promotion program and then the targeted export
assistance program, both of which we debated on this floor, both of
which we tried to reform.
Basically, the Market Access Program funnels tax dollars to corporate
trade associations and to cooperatives to advertise private products
overseas. While proponents of the program claim that the Market Access
Program boost its exports and creates jobs, there is no evidence to
support that. As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office
studies indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S.
agricultural exports.
I believe the private sector knows how to advertise. It does not need
government interference. I think that taxpayer dollars merely replace
money that would be spent by private companies on their own
advertising, and provisions in the 1996 farm bill have attempted to
reform MAP but thus far have failed. Although the percentage of large
companies that get this MAP money has decreased, a number of large
corporations still receive millions indirectly through trade
associations.
In the last 10 years, America's taxpayers basically paid out $1.5
billion for this particular subsidy. I think the American people would
agree that their money would be better spent if this was relegated back
to the private sector.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, yes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Royce amendment. I think
that the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is in the trade
accounts of the United States, which show that in spite of an
unbelievably large trade deficit in almost every other sector, in the
agricultural arena we have been able to keep our nose above water
barely, because we have exported more than we have imported. With
dropping prices for product and so forth, we have managed to double
some exports. In specialty areas, whether we are talking about fish or
packaged juices, we have been able to keep moving product outside this
country. That takes effort. The Market Access Program helps.
With changes made in prior farm bills, we have limited those who can
apply for assistance in order to move product into the international
market; but my goodness I would not want to stand on this floor and
oppose a program that has helped America maintain positive trade
accounts in agriculture internationally when every other single account
in petroleum and imported oil products, in manufactured goods, in
electrical equipment, no matter where one goes in the trade accounts,
the United States has historic trade deficits but for agriculture.
Though the going is getting rougher in international waters in terms of
trade, my goodness, this would be the last program one would want to
eliminate in terms of helping both farmers in this country move product
and in maintaining and turning around that yawning trade deficit which
is a very serious underbelly inside this economy. So I rise in
opposition to the Royce amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Royce amendment, and I
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his hard work on
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most egregious examples of taxpayer
subsidized corporate welfare, the MAP program. Hardworking taxpayers
should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of America's private
corporations. Yet that is exactly what the MAP program does.
Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted nearly $2 billion
from the pockets of American taxpayers and handed it over to
multimillion dollar corporations and cooperatives to subsidize their
marketing programs in foreign countries.
When Congress, back in 1996, in the farm bill required MAP funds to
be limited to farmer cooperatives and trade associations, proponents
argued that the MAP funds would only be used to help small businesses
and farmers. In fact, much of the funding went to large trade
associations made up of some of the largest and most profitable
corporations.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars
on special-interest spending programs and unfairly take money from hard
working families to help profitable private companies pad their bottom
line. MAP is a massive corporate welfare program that we should
eliminate today.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues,
wake up, wake up and smell the coffee. How do we know the coffee is
brewing? How do we know that there are French and Italian wines at the
market? The answer is because these countries that grow these products
also advertise these products in our country.
They want us to buy agriculture in other countries. That is why we
see oranges from South America being advertised in the United States,
coffee from Colombia, wine from France and Italy and so on; and yet
when it comes to our own agriculture, the most abundant agriculture in
the world, where we grow more than we can consume and where we actually
grow products for other countries, we should not be allowed to be on a
competitive field where everybody has a fair chance by small matching
money that the private sector has to put up and match by the Federal
Government?
The Federal Government spends $3.187 billion on advertising and
recruiting for the military. Our States advertise for tourism. Let us
also advertise for agriculture.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once
again on the MAP program. One of the arguments that was made by my
colleague from California is that, well, other countries are in a
position that they can do this advertising and it has been advantageous
to them. The fact of the matter is that our consumer marketplace
encourages that type of advertisement to go on of our products that are
here made domestically in the United States, irrespective of what is
going on in Chile or what is going on in France. I do not believe that
the United States taxpayer should be subsidizing these advertising
programs because, in fact, what winds up happening is that much of this
advertising, I would argue all of it that is subsidized by the MAP
program, would go on anyway because of the decisions made by the
industry; that it is in their interest to encourage this type of
development.
The MAP program is another example of a program where I do not see it
is very easy for us to point to demonstrated areas where the
advertising has led to any more farmers, any more

[[Page H3917]]

ranchers, any more production or sales. I am firmly of the belief, and
perhaps I am wrong on an economic level, that if the U.S. Government
leaves this field it would quickly be occupied.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I would
just like to make a couple of points. Number one, these funds are not
available to large international corporations. These funds are matched
by people like the corn growers, the beef producers, the pork
producers, people who care about their product and want to promote
their products overseas so that we can expand our exports for the
American farmers.
There is a prohibition from these corporations who are making
corporate welfare out of this. These programs are absolutely essential
for the future in agriculture so that we can add value to American
agriculture, so that we can go out into the world marketplace and talk
about the quality and the supply of good American food products.
If anything, Mr. Chairman, we should be increasing these funds. We
should be proud of what we stand for in agriculture. We should stand up
and say to our American farmers that they do have the best products in
the world and we want to go tell the world about it. That is what we
need to do is to protect this program. It is not large enough as it is.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that, according to the General
Accounting Office studies, there is no evidence that MAP increases
exports or increases jobs. Any increase cited and attributed to the
Market Access Program would have occurred whether MAP existed or not.
The private sector, I would also point out, knows better to whom to
advertise and how to advertise and can do it more efficiently. I think
that government hand-outs merely replace money that would be spent by
private companies on their own advertising.
The last point I would like to make is MAP, in some cases, uses tax
money derived from the competitors of these MAP recipients. So I would
urge adoption.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce). Mr. Chairman, as we continue to open our
borders and expand trade, we continue to put our own small producers at
a disadvantage because of the increased pressure from other countries
that are heavily subsidizing.
This is one program, one program, that is really working well to
enable some of our smaller producers and processors to gain access in
the foreign markets.
Now, the gentleman from California talked about the GAO study but I
want to say, Mr. Chairman, the GAO study did not go to Florida where we
have used the program very successfully in the citrus and grapefruit
industry. We do a 100 percent match of the Federal funds and since the
inception of this program we have increased the grapefruit exports from
$40 million to $190 million.
I strongly suggest that we vote down this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an annual debate on this amendment so
I will make my remarks brief. We are going to rehash what the benefits
of this are very quickly.
I want to point out the positive aspects of the Market Access
Program. Each year $90 million is spent out of the Commodity Credit
Corporation on MAP to help initiate and expand sales of U.S.
agricultural, fish, and forest products overseas. Rural American
farmers and ranchers, as the primary suppliers of commodities, benefit
from MAP. All regions of the country benefit from the program's
employment and economic effects from expanded agricultural exports
markets.
In 2000, agricultural exports totalled nearly $51 billion and that
generated almost three-quarters of a million jobs. About half a million
jobs out of that total were also related to other areas like
processing, packaging, storing and financing of exports.
Mr. Chairman, agricultural exports are expected to increase by
another $2 billion this year to $53 billion. More than 1 million
Americans now have jobs that depend on U.S. agricultural exports. This
program goes a long way toward making sure that we have these export
markets. I strongly oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Add before the short title at the end the following new
section:
Sec. ____. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $500,000,000 is appropriated to
the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out and support
(utilizing existing authorities of the Secretary and subject
to the terms and conditions applicable to those authorities)
research, technical assistance, loan, and grant programs
regarding the development of biofuels (including ethanol,
biodiesel, and other forms of biomass-derived fuels), the
production of such biofuels, the establishment of farmer-held
reserves of fuel stocks, and demonstration projects regarding
such biofuels, as part of a Biofuels and Biomass Energy
Independence effort and to augment the President's National
Energy Policy: Provided, That the entire amount shall be
available only to the extent an official budget request for
$500,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 28, 2001, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to especially thank my dear colleagues, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis), for reserving time this afternoon and checking in as this
debate ensued on the floor in order to be able to join me in this
debate.
Let me say that our amendment proposes that as a part of our national
energy strategy that biofuels and bioenergy be more than an
afterthought but, in fact, be a central pillar of helping America reach
a renewable energy future.

{time} 1700

If you look at America's trade accounts, our chief strategic
vulnerability relates to imported fuels. We are willing to go to war,
to send our young men and women to war, for oil, but we are not willing
to invest the dollars here at home to propel ourselves into a more
energy self-sufficient future.
When the President of the United States and new Vice President
produced a national energy report with solutions for the future, there
was one gaping hole: Not a single recommendation relates to renewables
and the use of biofuels, what we can take off our fields and forests,
in order to have ethanol, biodiesel, and other such fuels made a part
of America's energy future.
We declare an emergency, we set aside $500 million, and we say that

[[Page H3918]]

biofuels are as important as natural gas, they are as important as
petroleum, they are as important as any other fuel, whether it is
windmills or turbines or whatever, in order to put America on a sound
energy footing. We want to make sure that our message is heard loudly
and clearly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), who has experience in this area, and again I express
gratitude for his coming to the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment,
and I thank her for her comments and her hard work on this committee
and on so many other areas. She has touched on a critically important
issue to our country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment to
provide half a billion dollars in emergency spending on biodiesel,
ethanol and biomass research and development.
Mr. Chairman, since 1999, the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center, which is located in my district, has been conducting a pilot
project using biodiesel. At BARC they use 80 percent diesel and 20
percent soybean oil mix. Their test results found that using biodiesel
reduces carbon dioxide emissions 16 percent; particulate matter, which
is a major component of smog, 22 percent; and sulfur emissions, 20
percent.
Equally important to the environmental benefits of these fuels is the
fact that their use, as has been so well articulated by the gentlewoman
from Ohio, lessens our dependence on foreign oil and opens up new
markets for our farmers. So, from every perspective, this is a very
positive direction for our country to move, and I thank the gentlewoman
for her leadership.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has waited all afternoon in order to
make these comments. I thank the gentleman sincerely.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Kaptur amendment.
To say that we have an energy crisis is an understatement, but the
State of Illinois stands ready to help find a solution. The State of
Illinois is a major producer of corn, which, when used in the
development of ethanol, makes good sense. This amendment makes good
economic sense, environmental sense and common sense.
Ethanol is an additive which, when used in gasoline, produces cleaner
and more efficient energy. To help this country to become more energy-
efficient, we can and should employ greater use of ethanol. Ethanol
makes us more energy-efficient, more self-reliant and environmentally
protected. It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for introducing this
amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing this afternoon, let me say that oil
ministers of the Middle East should not be put in charge of setting
energy prices in the United States of America. We should have that
control inside of our border.
This amendment would merely replace one one-hundredth of the nearly
$70 billion that we send to the Middle East oil ministers every year
for petroleum imported here, and replace it with investments we make in
ourselves for the future. It gives the Secretary of Agriculture very
flexible authority in order to spend these dollars in order to make
agriculture an equal pillar along with other old fossil fuels.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. I continue to reserve the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire if the gentlewoman is going to
withdraw her amendment?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to
the chairman of our subcommittee, very reluctantly, very, very, very
reluctantly, very, very, very, very reluctantly, I am going to be
forced, because of the rules, to withdraw my amendment to put America
on a more renewable energy future. But I would hope that our words
today have been heard at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I
appreciate the chairman for his indulgence, and I would hope that
wisdom will prevail in the days and months ahead.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7____. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act in the
item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES-
Food and Drug Administration-salaries and expenses'', the
amount appropriated in the second undesignated paragraph of
such item (relating to section 804 of the Federal, Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act) is transferred and made available as
an additional appropriation under the first undesignated
paragraph of such item.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed a great debate today about the
importation and reimportation of prescription drugs. Yesterday
Secretary Thompson finally rendered his decision regarding the fate of
the reimportation provision attached to the fiscal year 2001
agriculture appropriation bill. My amendment takes the $2.95 million
designated in this bill for costs associated with the reimportation
provision and would transfer the funds back to the Food and Drug
Administration general account.
Clearly, in the wake of the Secretary's decision, the Agency no
longer needs the funds for the purposes of reimportation, and my
amendment would simply keep those funds within the Agency so they are
not penalized to be used for program priorities at the Agency's
discretion within such accounts as the prevention of BSE, TSE, mad cow
disease and hoof and mouth disease, many of the challenges that are
facing our country today.
Given its tremendous responsibilities and challenges, FDA needs every
resource available to keep our food and drug supply safe. I encourage
the membership to vote yes to keep these funds within the Agency.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, and ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman will be recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for finding these
funds at the eleventh hour. Hopefully these funds will be put to good
use, as the gentlewoman is pointing out. So I commend her good work on
this amendment and would be delighted to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much. It has been a pleasure
to work with the gentleman on this bill. We are proceeding
expeditiously, in view of the large number of amendments. I am deeply
grateful for the gentleman's support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7____. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act for
carrying out the responsibilities of the Food and Drug
Administration with respect to abbreviated applications for
the approval of new drugs under section 505(j) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

[[Page H3919]]

$1,000,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out
section 314.53(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
in addition to any other allocation for carrying out such
section 314.53(b) made from amounts appropriated in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start with what the Brown-Emerson
amendment does not do: It does not legislate on an appropriations bill;
it does not spend extra dollars; it does not reduce legitimate patent
protection for brand-name drugs; and, most importantly, it does not
permit FDA to continue to squander billions in consumer savings, making
excuses instead of making the brand-name drug industry abide by Federal
law.
Under FDA laws and regulations, a generic must certify it is not
infringing on patents that are directly related to a brand-name drug as
approved by FDA. Remember the phrase ``as approved by FDA.'' It is
important.
If a generic drug company is sued for potentially infringing on these
type of patents, FDA automatically suspends approval of the generic for
30 months. Because the drug industry knows that FDA does not actually
enforce its regulations, I repeat, because the drug industry knows that
FDA does not actually enforce these regulations and weed out patents
that under no circumstances should trigger that 30-month delay, drug
companies therefore are conjuring up patents that by no stretch of the
imagination fit any FDA criteria, just to trigger the 30-month delay,
just to enjoy 30 months more of profits, patents on unapproved
formulations of the drug, patents on unapproved uses of the drugs,
patents on the shape of the pills, patents on the grooves in the pills,
patents even on the bottle holding the pills. Each of these patents,
when challenged, triggers the 30-month delay.
These totally unnecessary delays cost consumers billions of dollars
in lost savings, while the brand-name companies reap those same
billions in additional profits.
Seven years ago CBO estimated that generics save consumers $8 billion
to $10 billion per year. Utilization and prices have both increased
dramatically since 1994. So have the potential savings associated with
generic drugs.
Take Prilosec, for example. Prilosec generates $283 million per month
in sales. Astra Zeneca has filed several unapproved use patents on
Prilosec, each of which could trigger a 30-month delay in generic
competition, even though under FDA regulations only patents on the
approved use of a brand name should trigger the 30-month delay.
Remember, generics save consumers, save employer-sponsored plans,
save all levels of government 40 to 80 percent over the brand-name
price. After a few years, the price differential sometimes grows to 90
percent. Over the next 10 years, brand-name drugs with sales topping
$40 billion annually will reach the end of their patent life. If we do
not do something to prevent drug companies from gaming the system to
extend their lock on the market to make their patents grow, if you
will, we are perpetuating needlessly inflated drug prices. I do not
want to do that to the consumers in my district.
Our amendment equips FDA to enforce its regulations and at least
prevent the most blatant abuses of its 30-month delay provision and
stop the gaming of the patent system by the name-brand drug
manufacturers.
It permits the Agency, it permits the Agency, to use up to $1 million
to get its act together to enforce its laws, to stop brand-name drug
companies from walking all over the Agency, and, more importantly,
walking all over the public.
We have an opportunity today to help our constituents without
changing a word of the existing FDA statute. I urge my colleagues to
take advantage of that opportunity and vote for the Brown-Emerson
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in lukewarm opposition to this amendment. This
concept sounds like a good one, and possibly there are some abuses that
are occurring. All of us should be concerned about that. However, I
have also got some concerns about finding the proper way to fix this
problem. The FDA is not exactly the right solution.
FDA prints a so-called ``Orange Book'' listing innovator drugs and
the patents that protect them. FDA's role is purely administrative. The
Agency does not evaluate the patents themselves. Ruling on patent
rights is a job for the courts, not the FDA.
FDA does not have the proper authority or expertise to evaluate
patents. We have got a Patent Office for that. Taking $1 million from
generic drug review to referee patent disputes seems to defeat the
purpose. Why would the sponsor seek to increase drug review times?
Again, I must oppose the amendment, reluctantly so, and ask my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that these are
FDA regulations that FDA claims it cannot enforce. It is not doing its
job. This $1 million will help it do its job.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it would
equip the FDA to prevent blatant patent abuses. This amendment does not
open up Waxman-Hatch, cut into patent protection, legislate on an
appropriations bill or spend new money. What this amendment does is to
enable the FDA to exercise the existing authority to prevent blatant
patent abuses under the Waxman-Hatch Act.
Today, some drug companies attach unrelated patents to approved drugs
and then sue companies that want to produce a generic equivalent for
patent infringement. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) indicated,
this can produce a 30-month delay in generic drug approvals and result
in substantial delays in consumer access to generic drugs.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out, the FDA has the authority to prevent
these blatant abuses right now. What they need is $1 million through
the Office of Generic Drugs in order to enforce this agreement and
ensure that patents are not inappropriately listed.

{time} 1715

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has been a real leader in the fight
to keep prescription drug prices down.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown-
Emerson amendment, which will help FDA exercise its existing authority
to prevent blatant patent-listing abuses under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
As many people may know, since the passage of Hatch-Waxman, brand-
name pharmaceutical companies have really become quite proficient in
manipulating the law to keep generic alternatives from reaching the
market. I do not think that the authors of this law would want that to
be happening today.
Just, for example, one of the brand industry's favorite and most
frequently used methods to delay generic competition is to make
insignificant changes to their products and secure new patents just as
the patent on the original product is set to expire. Under current law,
once such new patents are granted by the Patent Office, no matter how
frivolous or invalid they may be, the generic drug is prohibited from
going to market for 30 months.
In one instance a brand-name company triggered the 30-month
prohibition and delayed generic competition by patenting the color of
the bottle, the color of the bottle in which the pharmaceuticals are
typically dispensed. In another example, a brand company was able to
delay generic competition by claiming the generic version infringed on
the brand patent

[[Page H3920]]

because, like the brand, the generic pill had two grooves in it.
These types of delay tactics cost our constituents billions of
dollars every year. For example, Bristol-Myers Squibb listed a
frivolous patent with the FDA on the eve of its patent expiration for
the drug BuSpar. After months of delay, a Federal court ruled that the
patent was improperly listed and ordered Bristol to delist its patent
with the FDA. So the cost to consumers for this 5-month delay was $57
million.
The situation is getting so out of hand that on May 16 of this year,
the Federal Trade Commission had to send a citizens' petition to the
FDA questioning the possible improper or untimely listing of patents by
brand-name drug companies.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment is very simple. It would reallocate
already-appropriated FDA funds in the amount of $1 million to the FDA's
generic drug office. The money would allow the FDA to use its authority
to review and prevent the abuse of patent listings by drug companies
who want to extend the patent laws of their blockbuster drugs. This
amendment does not add any additional money, no additional money. All
it does is reallocate already-appropriated money.
Let us all make sure that the FDA devotes the resources necessary to
prevent the exploitation of patent listings, because each 30-month
delay of generic drugs costs consumers billions of dollars in lost
savings.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Chairman, the problem right now is that brand-name drug companies
have been attaching unrelated patents on to existing drug patents. They
are required to list patents of drugs that directly relate to existing
patents. However, one of the brand-name industry's tactics for
extending patents is to stack a list of patents that simply relate to
and do not directly affect existing patents.
As the brand-name industry engages in this so-called ``patent
stacking,'' unfortunately generic drug approvals are automatically
basically tagged with a 30-month delay, and this delays consumer access
to necessary prescription drugs and further delays the process from
making prescription drugs more affordable.
The FDA currently has the authority to ensure that only patents in
compliance stay on the books, and this amendment helps the FDA Office
of Generic Drugs use its $1 million in increased funding to exercise
this authority and remove barriers to generic competition.
Mr. Chairman, numerous pharmaceutical companies have listed patents
for unapproved uses and inappropriate forms of the drug. I am not going
to get into all the examples, but this adds up to billions of dollars
lost in consumer savings. We need to pass this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the Waxman-Hatch bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Look, when we adopted the law, we wanted to balance generic drugs,
brand-name drugs; and if a generic went in to FDA, FDA is supposed to
evaluate whether they are violating a patent. But some of these patents
are frivolous patents, and all the Brown amendment seeks to do is to
give FDA more funds so that they can figure out how to find out whether
a patent is frivolous or real. Why should consumers have to pay higher
prices for drugs and not allow competition with a generic availability
because of a frivolous patent?
So I strongly support this amendment, and I urge all Members to
support this very well-though-out, clear, and helpful, constructive
amendment.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this amendment
because of the intent behind the amendment. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and others, including the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), are correct in terms of problems, or at least
perceived problems insofar as FDA approving generics or enlisting the
patents of generics, but we are talking here about reallocating needed
funds.
Just a few days ago, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) offered an
amendment to increase the funds for FDA use towards approval of generic
drugs by $2.5 million. I supported that amendment. It passed this
House, if I remember correctly. Now, the point is, we are now in effect
saying we are going to take $1 million out of that $2.5 million, or at
least out of the amount that FDA ordinarily would use, towards approval
of generic drugs and put it into something like this.
Now, I am quoting, ``which will help FDA do their job; delaying
tactics, things of that nature.'' If, in fact, there are delaying
tactics; if, in fact, the FDA is not doing its job, there are things
that we can do. I do not think that throwing $1 million the FDA's way
will encourage them to do the job that they are required to do. That is
just not the answer to it at all.
The Brown amendment does not serve a legitimate purpose. It purports
to provide the FDA's Office of Generic Drugs, as we have already said,
with $1 million to ensure that patents are not inappropriately listed.
The law requires, the FDA law, sections 505 and 506 make it clear that
they will list these patents. It does not say anything about analyzing
the patents. If they are not listed on a timely basis, if there is
something inappropriate insofar as their listing is concerned, let us
look into that through hearings, through discussions with the FDA and
whatnot and do something about it, rather than just saying, we are
going to give them $1 million, reallocating $1 million to say that this
will ensure that you do the job you are required to do under the
statute. Mr. Chairman, I think not.
The FDA has absolutely no authority under present law to judge the
validity of patents. I say again, it has no authority to judge the
validity of patents. Their function is purely ministerial. It gets the
patent; it lists the patent. If it does not list the patent when they
get the patent, by gosh, there is something wrong with that and it has
to be taken care of. But they have no authority. They do not review
patents. They are forbidden by the law from reviewing patents. I will
not say that they are necessarily forbidden, but there is no language
in the law that basically gives them that authority.
The Patent and the Trademark Office, as has been said by others, and
the courts that judge patent validity say the FDA does not have the
experts to do so and, basically, they do not have the authority to do
so.
When Dr. Janet Woodcock, director for FDA's Center for Drug
Evaluation was asked by, I believe, one of our colleagues who has
already made a statement here, at the Committee on Energy and Commerce
hearing whether the FDA had authority to review patents, she said no.
She went on to say, when asked whether FDA should have the authority to
do so, she said, and I quote her, ``If we were asked to do such a
thing, I would have to say that it would significantly divert resources
from the scientific review of generic drugs that we are currently
undertaking.''
So if FDA were to get into the job of judging patent validity, they
tell us, the people that do this job, that the agency would be subject
to countless lawsuits. The $1 million provided for in the Brown
amendment would be spent very, very quickly.
So we understand, and I have already admitted, that there are
legitimate questions associated with additional patents being listed
very late in a patent term. The gentleman from Ohio knows how I feel
about generics. I bring them up all the time, and I am concerned about
the fact that they are possibly not being approved on a more timely
fashion.
This concerns us so much that just last month in the Committee on
Energy and Commerce we held a hearing on this matter that I have
already referred to. At this hearing we learned many things, including
the fact that the FDA cannot, under the law, judge

[[Page H3921]]

the validity of patents. The Brown amendment does not do what the
author says. I would hope that it would do, maybe if it passes, what
the author says; but I do not feel that it does. It would not allow FDA
to review patents; it merely would reallocate $1 million and say, hey,
we trust you to use this $1 million to do a better job insofar as
analyzing and listing patents. The FDA cannot do so under the law and
they should not be able to do so, and for those reasons, unfortunately,
I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Brown amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Allen

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Allen:
At the end of title VII, insert after the last section
(preceding any short title) the following section:
Sec. 7____. None of the amounts made available in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration may be expended to
approve any application for a new drug submitted by an entity
that does not, before completion of the approval process,
provide to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a
written statement specifying the total cost of research and
development with respect to such drug, by stage of drug
development, including a separate statement specifying the
portion paid with Federal funds and the portion paid with
State funds.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 28, 2001, the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer an amendment with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
to provide American taxpayers with information about our collective
investment in the research and development of new prescription drugs.
The Food and Drug Administration should not approve, in our opinion, a
new drug application unless the total cost of the research and
development of that drug is available to the public. We are
particularly interested in knowing how much money the taxpayers have
contributed.
The pharmaceutical industry claims that efforts to make drugs
affordable for seniors would reduce the industry's ability to conduct
research and to develop new drugs. I disagree. This industry is the
most profitable in the country. Their profits last year were more than
$27 billion. The manufacturers will always be able to attract capital
in order to do R&D.

{time} 1730

The industry asserts that they have a right to charge high prices to
those least able to afford it because of the $500 million, more or
less, that they claim it takes to launch a new drug.
What the industry consistently fails to disclose is that new drugs
are usually the result of a partnership with the public. A good portion
of our Nation's pharmaceutical research is conducted by publicly-funded
entities. We deserve to know how much.
The pharmaceutical industry says we do not deserve to know. They say
this amendment is unjustified. I say there is no justification for the
way America's seniors are currently treated. Seniors pay taxes which
are used to fund research, but the product of that research, which
saves lives, is too expensive for many of them to afford.
The drug manufacturers say no other industry has to disclose R&D
figures. But no other industry gouges the needy as they do, or operates
in such a shroud of secrecy.
We are not asking that the FDA make an approval decision based on the
R&D data. We are not asking that trade secrets be made public. We are
simply asking the FDA to inquire about the data on the cost of R&D and
to make it available.
The industry has attacked this amendment. I can only assume they know
their arguments about their R&D expenses will be undermined if the
public is told how much of the cost of the development of new drugs is
actually paid by the public.
We know that the taxpayer contribution to the development of
innovative medicines is significant. NIH estimates that taxpayer-funded
research, combined with private foundation-funded research, accounts
for about 50 percent of all medical research in this country. Now we
need to know the details, just how much public and private funding is
involved in the development of new drugs.
We do not want to slow the approval of or access to new drugs, but
there are too many patients who cannot afford the drugs, even if they
are approved by the FDA. Proving a drug safe and effective can take
years. Providing the cost of development should be easy. A memo to the
FDA would do the job. I can assure the Members that the pharmaceutical
industry is capable of tracking expenditures in their development of
new drugs. I am confident that this Congress and this administration
can find a way to implement this amendment successfully.
Because the cost of R&D is one of the most important components of
our debate over prescription drug costs for the elderly and disabled,
it is hard to believe that anyone could object to making basic
information on those costs available to the public.
Millions of our seniors have paid taxes for decades and contributed
to the development of new drugs. Now, in their retirement, they pay the
highest prices in the world for those drugs. The pharmaceutical
industry spends millions of dollars on TV ads about their miracle
drugs, but does not want the public to know how much the public has
contributed to those miracles. The public deserves to know. I urge
passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. I would inquire, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is going
to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker. I am not willing to
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) for 30 seconds, the balance of his time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Prescription drug companies consistently depend on one argument and
one argument only, to defend charging U.S. consumers two and three and
four times higher prices in the U.S. than they do in other developed
countries.
The one argument they use to justify grossly inflated drug prices is
that those prices are necessary to sustain R&D. Yet, we know that
American taxpayers fund almost half of all the R&D that is done in the
drug industry development in this country.
It is an insult for the industry to ask American taxpayers to
willingly pay the highest price in the world when they will not tell us
what they spend when they are the most profitable industry in America,
when they spend more money lobbying this institution than anybody else.
They pay back American taxpayers by charging us more than anybody in
the world.
I ask support for the Allen amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist upon
his point of order?

Point of Order

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment. It proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the
Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) wish to speak
on the point of order?
Mr. ALLEN. I simply await the ruling of the chair.

[[Page H3922]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds this amendment imposes additional duties not required
by existing law. Therefore, the amendment constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
Strike section 726 of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
28, 2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a Member
opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, for the most part, this bill is an excellent bill.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just to inform the gentleman, we are just delighted to
accept this amendment. If the gentleman would like to offer any more
debate time, that is fine, but in the good spirit of trying to work in
agreement here, I just want to let the gentleman know that we are
prepared to accept the amendment and move it forward.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of
the amendment. We do have several speakers who wish to speak on it.
Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill. I greatly respect the
outstanding work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), but I rise to strike section 726, an anti-
environmental rider which is meant to prevent any and all action to
address the climate change caused by global warming.
Mr. Chairman, section 726 is equivalent to burying our heads in the
sand, and hot sand, at that. Regardless of the fate of the Kyoto
Protocol, there is overwhelming, peer-reviewed, sound scientific
evidence for global warming. The National Academy of Sciences has very
recently reaffirmed that fact.
Placing a gag order on Federal agencies can only stifle our ability
to address what will be the most critical environmental issue of the
21st century at a time when carefully considered but comprehensive
action is needed.
This old rider dates back to the Clinton administration when the
majority believed, with good reason, that President Clinton would have
acted to implement Kyoto. But President Bush has made it clear that he
has no intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol. He has declared
the Kyoto Protocol dead, dead. So, at the very least, the rider is
unnecessary, and resuscitating it shows a lack of trust in the
President's intentions and in the President's word, which I am sure the
majority does not mean to do.
So why has the rider appeared? Because it has been used to badger
agencies and demand repeated explanations of environmental activities.
The Inspector General was recently forced to investigate alleged
violations by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the State
Department, and found no instances of violations. It is the President
of the United States who will not implement Kyoto, who runs the
executive departments.
This rider jeopardizes the executive agency work on every issue
related to climate change, which the U.S. is obligated to address as
part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Remember, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was proposed
for ratification by then President George Herbert Walker Bush in
September of 1992, was ratified by the Senate in October of 1992, and
took force in 1994.
It states that, and I quote, ``The parties to the convention are to
implement policies with the aim of returning to their 1990 levels of
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.''
Mr. Chairman, the consequences of global warming will not be mild. If
we do not begin to act soon, it may be too late to preserve our
coastlines and our agriculture. The American public wants this Congress
and this administration to find a way to address global warming.
How we do that is not the subject of today's debate. This vote has
nothing to do with implementing or even liking the Kyoto Protocol. But
a yes vote to remove this ill-conceived and unneeded rider allows our
agencies to search for ways and measures authorized by the already-
ratified U.N. framework to begin addressing greenhouse gases.
I urge a yes vote on the Gilchrest-Olver amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, who
is showing every day great leadership on this issue of climate change.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will spare my colleagues all the
arguments against the language in the bill and in support of the Olver-
Gilchrest language.
But in the spirit of the subcommittee chairman, who has acknowledged
his willingness to accept that, I want to applaud that action, because
I think for years now the language this amendment would strike has been
used to hound Federal agencies that try to address climate change. It
was used to harass agencies who sent government officials to
international climate change meetings, and it has been used in attempts
to thwart voluntary agreements, voluntary agreements, with industries
that offered to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet, both President Bushes, 41 and 43, acknowledged that climate
change is a serious problem. In fact, President George Herbert Walker
Bush even signed an international agreement to reduce U.S. emissions of
greenhouse gases, and that treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Despite its misgivings about the Kyoto Protocol, this administration
too has acknowledged the seriousness of climate change. As many know,
after receiving last month the report he requested from the National
Academy of Sciences, a report that underscored yet again the scientific
consensus that exists on climate change, President Bush pledged that
the U.S. will take a leadership role to address it.
I, for one, want to help him do that. I want the U.S. to take the
lead on dealing with climate change responsibility, and the
obstructionist language in this bill does not help do that.
So I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and
I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for their
steadfast support of reasonableness as we shape public policy, and I
want to extend to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla), my appreciation for his cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today, in support of the Olver-Gilchrest
amendment, but frankly, I'm disappointed that we have to have this
debate at all. I am disappointed that the language that we are
attempting to strike has been included in the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill in the first place, because today the scientific
consensus on global climate change is stronger than ever.
Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this amendment will tell you that the
language included in this bill--the language the amendment would
strike--simply prevents the Administration from implementing the
international agreement, known as the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce
greenhouse gases and curb global climate change.
The opponents say that the Administration should not implement the
Kyoto Protocol because it is fatally flawed and unrealistic.
They say the Administration shouldn't implement the Protocol because
it would exempt developing countries from requirements to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions.
They say the Administration shouldn't implement the Kyoto Protocol.
Period.
Well guess who agrees with them entirely? The Administration.
So if this Administration isn't even remotely thinking about
implementing the Kyoto Protocol, what is the language this amendment
would strike really about?
It is not about the Kyoto Protocol. It is not about fears the
Administration will sneakily conduct ``back-door'' implementation.

[[Page H3923]]

It is really about preventing any serious progress at all on the
serious environmental problem of global climate change. The truth is
that this amendment is really about who is for dealing with climate
change responsibly, and who is not.
For years now, the language this amendment would strike has been used
to hound federal agencies that tried to address climate change. It was
used to harass agencies who sent government officials to international
climate change meetings. And it has been used in attempts to thwart
voluntary agreements--voluntary agreements--with industries that
offered to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet, both Presidents Bush have acknowledged that climate change is a
serious problem. In fact, George H.W. Bush even signed an international
agreement to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases--and that treaty
was ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Despite its misgivings about the Kyoto Protocol, this Administration,
too, has acknowledged the seriousness of climate change. As many of you
know, after receiving last month the report he requested from the
National Academy of Sciences--a report that underscored yet again the
scientific consensus that exists on climate change--President Bush
pledged that the U.S. will take a leadership role to address it.
I, for one, want to help him do that. I want the U.S. to take the
lead on dealing with climate change responsibly. And the obstructionist
language in this bill does not help do that.
It is time this House took the issue of climate change seriously, as
our President has said he does. I urge my colleagues to support the
Olver-Gilchrest amendment. Let's strike this troublesome language from
the bill, and put the tired old bogeyman of Kyoto behind us.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends across the aisle, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest), for cosponsoring this effort to strike an anti-
environmental rider.
I just want to share an experience I had last week when I was up on
the Arctic plain on the shores of the Arctic Ocean talking to
biologists and geophysicists about what is going on in the Arctic.
What I learned was that, in a relatively stunning development, fully
50 percent of the depth of the pack ice above the North Pole, the
Arctic oceans, have dissipated in the last several decades. Half of the
depth has gone away, and 10 percent of the extent of the ice is gone
because of global warming that has occurred.
I talked to rangers at Denali National Park who have worked there
about 15 years and have seen the treeline move north just during their
experience. The fact is, this is happening. It is happening four or
five times more rapidly in the Arctic than it is in temperate zones,
but it is a harbinger of things to come.
I am hopeful that the House will not move backwards with this, but in
fact will strike this language so we can make a positive statement and
move forward. The United States should be a leader. We have been a
leader in freedom. It is time for us to become a leader in global
climate change, and realize the development for our economy at the same
time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and want to recognize in general the
leadership the coauthor on this amendment has provided on climate
change.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me, and for the part the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
has played in the process, and thank all the other Members for their
work.
I also want to thank, with a great deal of gratitude, the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for accepting our amendment.
As Members might observe, the picture next to the podium is our home.
I think it is our responsibility to preserve it and protect it.

{time} 1745

Three quick points: Number one, I want to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for accepting the amendment so that the language is
taken out of the bill. This gives the Bush administration the
opportunity to discuss this in an international way.
Number two, it gives us, as Members of the House, a sense of
responsibility for protecting the planet, so we will not pass that
burden and that responsibility off to the next generation, which will
have a much more difficult time.
Number three, very quickly, everybody talks about the weather, but
not a lot of people, including us, know a lot about the weather or
where does the air that we breathe come from, how does it sustain us,
how is the air sustained, and over what period of time did it create
what we now see.
Well, there is a word that I think is interesting called coevolution,
and that means the biological diversity of the web of life, on land and
in the oceans, over eons of time, has produced and sustained the
atmosphere that surrounds this planet, unique in the known universe, in
which life through nature's bounty thrives as we know it today.
And the last comment I want to make is can man, through polluting,
degrading, and fragmenting the environment, have the capacity to change
the atmosphere and actually change the climate? This is a report that
the Bush administration had a number of scientists from the National
Academy of Science review and come back and tell the Bush
administration the answers to those two questions. Does man have the
capacity to change the atmosphere, thus changing the climate?
To read just a couple of sentences from this report commissioned by
the Bush administration from the National Academy of Sciences,
``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface
ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. Human-
induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue
through the next century.'' That is throughout the 21st century.
Can we change the atmosphere? If we look on this chart produced by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we can see from
1860 to the year 2000 the acceleration of the accumulation of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. This is from our Federal Government,
commissioned by the Bush administration. We can change the atmosphere
by increasing the greenhouse gas of carbon dioxide, thereby increasing
warming.
This chart, produced by NASA, shows since 1860 the level of increase
in warming which affects the climate, and it is dramatic during the
industrial age.
So the questions are: Can we affect our atmosphere? Can we change
climate? The answer to those two questions is yes, and now it is time
for us to do something about it.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman for his acceptance, and I thank him for yielding
back his time. I do have two people who wish to make very short
statements.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. I stand in
strong support of this amendment, which will ensure that we move
forward to combat global warming.
Global climate change is underway. Denying the existence of global
warming will not make it go away nor can the United States afford to
deny its role. Just last week I had the opportunity to talk to European
leaders about climate change and, believe me, they have grave concerns
about our retrenchment. Our country must bear its share of this burden.
Now, President Bush recently asked the National Academy of Sciences
to revisit the issue. They concluded greenhouse gases are accumulating
in

[[Page H3924]]

the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Temperatures
are in fact rising. Their report goes on to say the national policy
decisions made now and in the long-term future will influence the
extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and
ecosystems later in this century.
Voluntary reductions, which the President advocates, are not
sufficient. I urge adoption of this amendment. We need to send a clear
message that this Congress is committed to protecting our environment,
protecting the public health, and protecting our future.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Olver-Gilchrest amendment to strike the Kyoto rider language.
The President has already indicated that he has no intention of
implementing the Kyoto Protocol. That is unfortunate because we need to
stay engaged at the table to encourage progress on this critical issue.
However, it makes this rider unnecessary.
Science has confirmed the existence of global climate change is real.
The effects of this have significant implications for agriculture in
our nation and around the world. The mix of crop and livestock
production is influenced by climatic conditions and water availability.
Increases in climate variability already make adaptation by farmers
more difficult. In my state of Missouri, agriculture is a $4 billion
annual industry, one-half of which comes from livestock, especially
cattle. The major crops in my state are corn, soybeans, and hay. Corn
and soybean yields could fall by as much as 22% or rise by as much as
6%, depending on the climate variability resulting from global climate
change.
As a result of global warming, we expect to see more frequent
anomalies in our weather, with more frequent severe storms, floods, and
droughts. Clearly these volatile weather patterns can have a highly
negative impact on our ability to farm and protect and secure families
and property.
We might also expect to see more pests in our plants and food stream.
We may see more insects, and plant disease is expected to become more
prevalent. There may be many pests that are new to our area, and we
might expect to see greater numbers of insects, some of which carry
diseases like malaria. The insects could travel further north--into
MO--as a result of global warming. Again, this could have a potentially
significant adverse effect on plants and crops by destroying our
nation's precious resources and jeopardizing human health.
This morning, Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri-St.
Louis, at a National Academy of Sciences forum, spoke about the ability
of plants to sequester carbon. While planting trees and other carbon-
sequestering crops will capture more carbon dioxide, many plants will
be less productive if global warming continues because high
temperatures limit the ability of plants to photosynthesize, thus
reducing their ability to capture carbon.
Our Nation's strategy to address climate change can produce a
reliable supply of diverse fuels that minimize greenhouse gases and
secure our leadership in energy technology to benefit our consumers and
to export around the world.
We must make the necessary investments in emerging technologies which
will allow the United States to gain the edge in developing and
marketing new products and lead to job creation. If we fail to act, we
will lose the edge to other nations like Japan and Germany who are
committed to this course of action.
A decade of progress has occurred since former President Bush signed
the original climate treaty in Rio in 1992. This rider makes it
difficult for federal agencies to work on any issues related to climate
change, which the U.S. is obligated to address as part of the Rio
agreement.
I urge others to join with me in voting in favor of this amendment,
because whether or not the Kyoto protocol moves forward, we have an
obligation to maintain our global leadership role in developing new
technologies that will enable us to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases and promote the agricultural economy. The rider is unnecessary
and I urge my colleagues to support the Olver/Gilchrest amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in allowing a brief comment.
America is the largest polluter dealing with greenhouse gases and it
is appropriate for us to exercise some leadership. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has, I think, identified why in fact it is a
problem, the single greatest environmental threat that we face.
Unfortunately, this administration has been slow to acknowledge the
problem, and sadly slower to embrace American leadership, which is
needed in a global sense.
I am pleased with the gentleman's willingness to accept the
amendment. I hope that it portends greater things in the course of this
session where Congress can provide some leadership on this critical
environmental level; that we can be promoting a bipartisan commonsense
approach to reduce the greenhouse gases, and to encourage American
industry and individuals to all play their role.
I think this is an important first step, and I appreciate the
leadership that the committee has been exerting.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and thank very much the chairman of the subcommittee for his
indulgence, even after he had agreed to accept the amendment. We
appreciate that very much.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to
implementing the Kyoto Protocol.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, by 2008 to 2012 the U.S. would be required
to slash emissions of greenhouse gases to seven percent below the 1990
level--a level last achieved in 1979. Based on projections of the
future growth in U.S. energy use, this would require a real cut in
emissions of over 30 percent. In the meantime, major greenhouse-gas
emitters, such as China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, would be able to
continue business as usual.
In July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was signed, the Senate passed
on a vote of 95 to 0 the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which states that the
U.S. should not sign any treaty that (1) would mandate cuts in
emissions only for developed countries and (2) would result in serious
economic harm.
This commonsense resolution set the absolute minimum criteria for
Senate ratification of any climate treaty. The Clinton Administration
never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification
because it knew that it would be dead on arrival.
In a breath of fresh air, President Bush said succinctly, ``I will
not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American
workers.'' In stating the obvious and pulling the plug on this flawed
treaty, the President has spared us from a U.N. boondoggle that would
harm American workers, consumers, and businesses.
The proponents of this amendment argue that, because the
Administration does not support the Kyoto Protocol, the language in the
bill is superfluous. Further, they argue that striking the language
will send a positive message to the international community that the
U.S. is willing to play a leadership role in climate change. We are a
leader in the world on reducing and sequestering harmful emissions.
Annually we spend nearly $2 billion on climate change research, more
than the rest of the world combined. There are many things about the
climate system we still do not understand. That is why we need to
continue this research and increase our knowledge of climate
variability and the potential human impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
Current computer models predicting warming over the next century may
prove to be no more reliable than the five-day weather forecast. But
even assuming that these models are right, achieving the emission goals
in the treaty would reduce projected warming by less than one-tenth of
a degree by 2050. So we still have time to do the necessary research to
fill in the gaps and get it right instead of lurching ahead with a
treaty that would cost too much and do nothing to solve the problem it
is intended to solve.
The Administration also has said that it will be working to develop
new technologies, market-based incentives, and other approaches to
increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. I fully
support these approaches, which make much more sense than the commend-
and-control dictates that would flow from the Kyoto process.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner); the amendment offered

[[Page H3925]]

by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. We were just
presented a list of potential amendments for consideration by the full
membership, and I wonder if the Chair would again repeat which
amendments the Members will be asked to vote on and the order that they
will be presented.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed will be voted on in the following order: the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner); the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); and the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we believe that that third amendment was
accepted; voice voted.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct, the amendment was approved
by voice vote and no recorded vote was requested.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, for all the Members who are watching from
their offices, then, in terms of the order of the votes, it would then
be?
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner) will be first, followed by the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Ms. KAPTUR. Then we will move to final passage?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the Chair very much.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Weiner

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 272, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 219]

AYES--155

Ackerman
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blumenauer
Borski
Brown (SC)
Burton
Camp
Cantor
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Evans
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hayworth
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Keller
Kelly
Kerns
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kolbe
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Petri
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wu

NOES--272

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherwood
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Capuano
Conyers
Herger
Jones (OH)
Lewis (CA)
Paul

{time} 1819

Messrs. GONZALES, WYNN, DAVIS of Illinois, NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms.
PELOSI, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. KELLY and Messrs. SCHROCK, TERRY, KERNS, STUPAK, BERMAN, SAXTON,
FATTAH, GOSS, BROWN of South Carolina, SHERMAN, BALDACCI, and EHLERS
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 219, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Royce

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[[Page H3926]]

[Roll No. 220]

AYES--85

Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Berkley
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Cantor
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
DeMint
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Graham
Grucci
Hall (OH)
Hayworth
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Istook
Keller
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Linder
LoBiondo
Luther
McInnis
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Morella
Pallone
Payne
Petri
Portman
Ramstad
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Wamp
Waters
Weiner

NOES--341

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Capuano
Jones (OH)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
Paul
Turner

{time} 1828

Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 220, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2330)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 183, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 16, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 221]

YEAS--414

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller

[[Page H3927]]

Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--16

Bass
Cox
Crane
Doggett
Flake
Green (WI)
Hefley
Hostettler
Rohrabacher
Royce
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Stark
Tancredo
Toomey

NOT VOTING--3

Capuano
Lewis (CA)
Paul

{time} 1848

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________