[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11372-H11377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2673, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2004
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered By Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 2673, be instructed to insist on the House
position on prescription drug importation in Section 749 of
the House-passed bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Madam Speaker, to the uninitiated, people might think that this is a
motion that deals with the agriculture appropriations bill. But, in
fact, what is happening today is that conferees are being appointed,
ostensibly, to deal with the agriculture appropriations bill but, in
fact, the agriculture appropriation will then become the vehicle into
which all other appropriation bills that have not yet passed the
Congress will be dumped, producing one of those glorious omnibus
appropriation bills that the Congress deals with at the end of the
session when it has not been able to get its work done. So Members can
expect to see this conference come back containing not only the
material that is appropriate to the agriculture bill, but if the
majority has its way, they can expect that the conference report will
also contain the State, Justice, and Commerce appropriation, the Labor,
Health, and Human Services appropriation, perhaps the VA-HUD
appropriation, the D.C. appropriation, and perhaps several others. On
this side of the aisle, we do not believe that those bills should be
considered together. We believe that each of them should stand on their
own merits.
We have another complicating factor, because this legislation will be
used by the majority to try and pave the way for passage of its ill-
conceived and misbegotten Medicare, so-called Medicare Reform Act. Now,
that bill started as an effort to provide a prescription drug benefit
for our senior citizens under Medicare. Instead, what is being produced
on that score is a very weak, badly-shredded, partial benefit that does
not even begin until years down the road, and the enticement of that
prescription drug bill or that prescription drug coverage, I should
say, is
[[Page H11373]]
being used as an effort to blackmail Congress into essentially
vitiating Medicare as we know it today. There are not many people on
this side of the aisle who think that that is a good idea either.
Now, one of the provisions in the Medicare conference report that
will shortly be before this body is a provision which tries to create
the impression that senior citizens will be allowed to reimport drugs
from Canada as part of the passage of that bill. But, in fact, the FDA
has made quite clear that that provision will not work. So what we are
going to be faced with is a ``let's pretend'' game. The Congress will
pretend in the Medicare bill that it is about to pass that there is a
meaningful ability for seniors to reimport drugs at a lower cost from
Canada when, in fact, because that provision requires the approval of
the very agencies that are opposed to it, no such reimportation will
ever take place.
So this Congress, in essence, intends on the Medicare reform bill to
practice consumer fraud on the House Floor. This bill is part of that
scheme, because this bill presently contains a requirement, in the form
of the Northup amendment, that drug reimportation, meaningful drug
reimportation be allowed to take place. But the intention of the
conferees, at least on the majority side, is to deep-six that provision
in conference so that the bill will come back stripped of that, and
they will pretend that they have taken care of the need in the Medicare
bill but, in fact, the Medicare bill will not have taken care of it at
all. It sounds complicated; it is meant to be. Because that is the way
that the public is deceived into thinking that there will be real
action on reimportation of drugs from Canada when, in fact, the
majority has no intention whatsoever of allowing that to occur.
So, therefore, I am offering this motion which says, in effect, that
on this bill, if we are going to have a drug reimportation proposal,
and I have some questions about the advisability of some of those
proposals, but what this motion says is that if we are going to have a
drug reimportation provision, it at least ought to be a real one, and
that is what we believe the Northup amendment is, in contrast to the
phony ``let's pretend'' proposition which will shortly be coming at us
in the so-called Medicare reform bill.
So our position is very simple: this language gives people who want
to have drugs reimported from Canada, lower-cost prescription drugs,
this gives people who want to see that happen an opportunity to vote to
require it. This is an effort to keep a real drug reimportation
provision before the Congress rather than simply allowing the
institution to engage in this widespread charade that somehow there is
a meaningful reimportation provision in the Medicare bill which is
about to come at us.
A lot of things will happen in this House over the last week, in the
closing week of the session, or what is expected to be the closing week
of the session. A lot of things will happen which will not bring credit
to this House. What I would hope is that we could avoid having a broad-
scale consumer fraud effort take place on this House floor and, in my
view, without the Northup amendment, any pretense that there is a drug
reimportation provision that is being made available to seniors will be
just that, a blatant effort to defraud the public. I would hope that
the membership of this House would recognize that, and I would hope
that the members of the general public who have been waiting for years
for a meaningful provision on drugs would remember it as well.
So for those of my colleagues who are interested in having
reimportation actually occur, this motion is in support of the only
real proposition that will be before the Congress between now and
adjournment, and we will see whether Members, in fact, put their votes
where their mouths are. Any Member who votes for the Medicare reform
bill and claims that they have provided a drug reimportation plan that
will provide lower-cost drugs from Canada will be committing consumer
fraud, and I want to say that beforehand so that Members are put on
notice as to what that provision really is. If my colleagues want to be
real, vote for this motion. If they do not, do not. It is as simple as
that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
22 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 30
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. And who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the right
to close.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, and, more importantly, I thank him for
offering this motion that will be our only opportunity to provide a
statement by the Members of Congress as to the real issue of
importation, since that opportunity will now be denied us in the
prescription drug bill that we are anticipating coming to this floor.
As many of our constituents know, millions of Americans have waited
for the opportunity to be able to take advantage of the lower prices of
pharmaceuticals that are available in Canada and in other countries,
but specifically with respect to Canada, as we tried to address in the
bill. We now see that that door is going to be slammed shut. The
reimportation is going to be granted on one hand, but the certification
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will effectively close,
as it has in the past, the opportunity for American citizens who are
ill, who need these drugs, who are financially troubled and financially
incapable of paying for some of these drugs; as a result of that, they
take the prescription that their doctor has given them, they reduce the
amount of pills they take per day, they reduce the dosage that they
take in trying to get through the month in order to pay for, in many
instances, lifesaving drugs that they need by order of their physician.
Many of our constituents, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
Americans, have now taken to forming buying clubs, of taking trips by
bus, riding long hours on buses, to go to Mexico, to go to Canada to
buy these drugs in Canadian pharmacies where the prices are much, much
lower than what they are having to pay through their health care plan
if they have one or, if they do not have one at all, what they would
pay on the market.
{time} 1145
It has been suggested that this is forced upon Americans because this
is the only way that they can recapture the research and development
dollars that continue to flow these pharmaceutical drugs to the
marketplace. Some of that is true. But the question millions of
American citizens are asking is why is it that only the American ill,
the American sick, the American infirm are the ones who have to pay for
this? They say, well, the other countries have price controls, the
other countries negotiate. We asked for the authority to have the
Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate the prices of drugs
for Medicare recipients as we do in the Veterans Administration, as
Wal-Mart does, as Costco does, as all big purchasers do with
pharmaceuticals, and we were denied that opportunity in the House.
So the only outlet, the only outlet for these citizens where their
financial situation does not meet their medical situation is to go to
Canada, and now that opportunity is being slammed in terms of this
reimportation provision within the Medicare prescription drug benefit
that will be coming to the floor.
As a result of that, without the negotiation power of the Secretary
of Health and Human Services on the cost of drugs, without the
reimportation provision, America's senior citizens, and I must say all
American families, are put at the mercy of the pharmaceutical industry
that will now have no incentive to lower the cost of drugs.
The prescription drug bill coming to the floor does some wonderful
things for hospitals, wonderful things for doctors, some wonderful
things for the
[[Page H11374]]
pharmaceutical companies, but it does nothing for the people who have
to consume those pharmaceuticals. It makes no effort at trying to
control the price of those pharmaceuticals, the cost of those to
individuals.
And when we say that, we are saying simply have us negotiate as a
large purchaser. That is what the business world does. People come to
us and ask why do we not run the government more like a business. We
try to run it like a business, and the businesses shut us down.
So now the question of reimportation will be shifted from a vote in
this Congress to provide for reimportation, in the new bill it will now
all go to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the entire
political and financial clout of the pharmaceutical industry will be
focused on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to never certify
for the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to the United States, thereby
depriving millions of Americans the opportunity to lower the cost of
the drugs that are necessary to them on a monthly basis as prescribed
by their doctors.
We are going to decide that those senior citizens, those people who
are desperately in need of these pharmaceuticals are going to be the
sole individuals that are somehow going to pay for the research and
development of these drugs if, in fact, that argument is even accurate.
The fact of the matter is, the reason the prices are really high in
the United States, as opposed to the other countries, is the power of
the pharmaceutical industry to do just as they have done in the
Medicare prescription drug bill and that is to take out all of the
provisions that would have given a break to the sick and the elderly in
this country, that would have given them an opportunity to lower the
cost of the drugs that they have to buy every week and every month.
That is why the prices are so high in the United States. It is not
about research and development. It is about lobbying, it is about
political contributions, it is about the force of this industry on this
Congress and the House and the Senate and the Republican leadership to
strip this bill of those provisions that were put in on a bipartisan
basis, on a bipartisan basis in the House, on a bipartisan basis in the
Senate, to strip them and remove them to the administration which has
opposed these provisions from the very beginning.
So the fate of our senior citizens, the fate of the elderly in this
country, the fate of the ill, the sick in this country, is now placed
back into hands of the pharmaceutical companies, exactly where it was
when we began this process. So the pharmaceutical companies, as this
bill comes to the floor, get a great big victory and the consumers and
the sick people in this country get nothing. They get a continuation of
exorbitant costs of pharmaceuticals that are absolutely essential to
their well-being and sustaining their health, maybe, in fact, in
sustaining their life.
So this motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the most
important vote in terms of our ability to express the desire to have
reimportation as part of our medical policy in this country and also to
tell the conferees that they are bringing to us an imperfect product,
and they should to back to the conference committee and make sure that
America's elderly and America's sick are protected and have the
opportunity to take advantage of the reimportation of those
pharmaceuticals that they need.
We should recognize that the bill as reported by the conferees is not
a bill that protects the senior citizens of this country, it is not a
bill that provides for those who are ill in this country; it protects
the pharmaceutical companies and they should have to go back to
conference.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has 15 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) has 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Could I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), is it
his intention not to yield any time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is a question to the gentleman from
Texas. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his time?
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, is it the intention of the gentleman not to
yield any time?
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, at this time we reserve the balance of
our time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, we have the right to close, so I am
wondering when the gentleman is intending to use his time.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I would suggest at this moment to the
gentleman from Wisconsin if he has additional speakers to go ahead and
proceed.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman going to be supporting or
accepting the motion?
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, as I stated earlier, we are in opposition
to the motion.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. As high
health care prices continue to erode the living standards of middle-
class families across this country, the rising price of prescription
drugs remains front and center in the eyes of seniors. A recent report
by Families USA concluded that the prices of the 50 most frequently
used prescription drugs by seniors rose by nearly 3\1/2\ times the rate
of inflation. That is a problem for them, their children, and their
children's children. We all have a stake in driving down prescription
drug prices.
In July this body abrogated its responsibility to address the problem
of soaring drug prices. It barred the government from negotiating lower
prices for seniors. It did worse than nothing.
Since that time the call for prescription drug importation, giving
ordinary Americans the choice that they are taking on their own, out of
desperation, has reached a critical mass. Today the American people
know that importation would save them billions of dollars, $600 billion
in the next decade, savings passed directly onto the consumer.
They know it is a safe option, because they know that the U.S. drug
companies themselves reimport brand name medications from their
overseas plants, $14.7 billion worth in 2001. They know that the
reimportation bill passed this body in late July. It guaranteed safety.
I would repeat that our bill not only required drugs reimported from
other countries be FDA approved, but also that the facilities they are
manufactured in are FDA approved as well. Add to that requirement in
this bill that all prescription drugs use counterfeit-resistant
packaging, and there is little doubt that every drug purchased here in
the United States, reimported or otherwise, would be safer than the
drugs that are available today.
The FDA is so concerned about safety then they ought to take a look
at food safety in the United States. They have jurisdiction over
imported foods coming into the United States, and only less than 1
percent, 1 to 2 percent of all imported food is inspected coming into
this country. And yet the FDA will certify that that food is the safest
food supply in the world. And yet FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved
facilities will not be certified as being safe. Tell us, on whose side
is the FDA? This is not an issue of safety, it is an issue of price.
This Congress needs to stop acting as the wholly-owned subsidiary of
the pharmaceutical companies, and step up to its responsibilities to
help consumers. We need to vote for this motion because it is the only
opportunity for this body to vote for lower cost prescription drugs.
The Medicare prescription drug policy that has come out of the
conference in this body, decimates and destroys Medicare, does nothing
about the high cost of prescription drugs. And unless we pass this
motion to instruct, there will be no opportunity to do what is the
right thing for America's families, for America's seniors, and that is
to provide them with the opportunity to get their prescription
medications at a price that they can afford in order to save their
lives. That is what this issue is about today. It is about providing
people in this country the wherewithal to afford prescription drugs.
Madam Speaker, let us vote for this motion to instruct. Let us do the
right thing for seniors and for the families in this country.
[[Page H11375]]
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, we are told by my colleague from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla), the Republican who is opposing this motion, that he does
not have any comments on it, does not have anything to say about it.
And I think that is kind of funny because we know full well when the
Medicare bill comes up here, it is going to be Thursday or Friday at 5
o'clock in the morning when America is sleeping and all the seniors do
not know what is happening.
But why is this provision important about the drug importation?
Because when this bill originally passed the House, it passed by one
vote. And after the roll call was left open an hour with the Republican
leadership beating their Members into submission, a deal was struck
that, okay, we are going to pass this bill, if we get drug importation.
And that is why the bill passed.
Then it went to a conference committee, and there was not a Democrat
from the House sitting in there negotiating. But you know what was in
there? The drug companies were in there. And now we are going to see
the final product a few days from now, and lo and behold, drug
importation is only permitted if the Secretary of Health and Human
Services says it is okay. But we know that he has already said it is
not okay. They oppose it.
The administration is in the pocket of the drug companies. And so
your mothers and fathers and grandparents are going to be pay more for
drugs. This bill is a bad bill. Not only does it provide no decent drug
coverage for America's seniors, but it is an attempt to get them out of
the Medicare program.
Madam Speaker, 90 percent of seniors today are in the Medicare fee-
for-service program. This bill rewards or gives gifts to insurance
companies to get them to move out and go into the private insurance
companies where they are going to get a real bad deal on their health
care.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, previous to today's debate the House has
spoken definitively on what the American people want and today are only
getting price relief on their prescription drugs by importing from
Canada. Yet, through stealth maneuvers, the Republican majority, under
pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and the White House, is going
to close the border. They are about to say, to quote the FDA
Commissioner, the FDA cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs.
Well, guess what? They cannot guarantee the safety of American drugs.
In fact, it is well documented that the supply chain is more broken in
the United States of America than it is in Canada where there is more
government control.
That was totally a specious argument that they have drug out here to
try and protect one thing: Not the safety of the American public and
our seniors, not their health. I will tell you what jeopardizes their
health: When they cannot afford the drugs they need for a chronic or an
acute condition.
{time} 1200
There are tens of thousands of seniors and others across America in
that condition.
No, there is only one issue here. There is only one thing to protect,
and it is not the safety of America's seniors; it is not the sanctity
and the quality of our drug supply, because it is already compromised
by phony closed-door pharmacies and hundreds of other loopholes that
are getting counterfeit drugs, as is well documented, into the system
in our country.
Not in Canada. Their system works a lot better. They are reimporting
FDA-approved drugs through Canada, and we know they are probably really
American drugs. Here there are a lot of counterfeit drugs being made
available though phony wholesalers.
No, there is one thing that is being protected. Well, two things. One
is the obscene prices and profits of the pharmaceutical industry; and
two is political campaign contributions to the White House and
Republicans. That is what is being protected.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me time.
People from around the world come to America for their medical care.
Yet Americans are forced to go around the world for their medications.
Why? Because we have the most expensive prices for prescription drugs
anywhere in the world right here in the United States; and yet all the
medications are developed with taxpayer-funded research. Now we are
given the honor and distinction to pay the most expensive prices.
Now, there are two ways to address the issue of cost and
affordability of prescription drugs. One was allowing Americans, like
our European colleagues, to buy prescription drugs at 30, 40, 50
percent cheaper, same name-brands drugs in both Canada, Europe, France,
Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Yet, twice the Republican Congress has
denied the right to Americans to free trade, to competition and choice
because through competition prices would reduce and come down for
America. Americans would no longer subsidize the poor starving French
and Germans. They pay competitive prices. We pay competitive prices.
Prices will drop here at home.
Second is give the right to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services what the Secretary of the Veterans Administration has and what
the private insurers have, which is to negotiate bulk prices, that is,
a Medicare Sam's Club. And rather than use the power of 41 million
seniors, we take a powder here, twice denying the right to seniors to
get cost-effective measures, to get the prescription drugs they need at
the prices they can afford.
We deny that right. Why? Because we do not have faith in Tommy
Thompson to negotiate good prices, but we have faith in him to deny the
right of prescription drugs that come into this country at affordable
prices. Our seniors are paying premium prices, and what are we about to
do?
We are about to ask the taxpayers to pay $400 billion of their money
for the most expensive drugs, prescription drugs, anywhere in the
world. We owe the common decency and courtesy to the taxpayers to get
the best price and not the most expensive price.
I support this motion so we would finally break the hammer lock the
prescription drug companies have on this Congress and the Republican
Congress and give the American people the type of relief they need so
they can buy the drugs they need for their health at the prices they
can afford.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, we have got a strange situation here. When we think
about this, the most profitable industry in the country, the most
profitable industry in the country is charging the highest prices in
the world to America's seniors and others without health insurance. And
yet the head of the Food and Drug Administration is giving speeches
saying the problem is not that prices are too high in this country; the
problem is that they are too low in other countries. The rest of the
world has it wrong. They should raise their prices.
This is ludicrous. In fact, the drug companies are happy to sell
their drugs in Canada and Europe and around the world where on average
they are selling their drugs for 40 percent less, and there is research
going on in Canada. Look at this, just one example, there are 79
research-based drug companies in Canada. And since 1995, they have
increased their research spending by 50 percent. The pharmaceutical
industry is not hurting in Canada or around the world. The people who
are hurting are our seniors trying to buy their medication here at
home.
[[Page H11376]]
We need to be able to take drugs from other countries to bring them
into this country. We know one thing, this administration is never
going to approve the reimportation of low-price drugs from Canada. They
will not do it. They are trying to stop it now. So any provision which
depends on the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
and a Republican administration is not going to fly. That is why it is
so important that this motion pass; it is so important that we have
legislation that authorizes the reimportation of drugs. We do it for
other products. We ought to do it for medication.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for yielding me time.
I rise in support of the motion to instruct, to instruct the
conferees that we accept in this agriculture appropriations bill the
same language that has already been passed on the House floor as it
deals with reimportation, and let me tell you why.
In June of last year, I did a study where we compared the price paid
by seniors in Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District with the price
paid by seniors in six other countries. And we found that the price
paid by seniors in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas is 110
percent more on average than the price paid by seniors in places like
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K.
Let me give you a couple of examples. Prevacid, 30 milligrams. In our
congressional district it costs $128 a month. The average foreign
price, $55 a month. Celebrex, 200 milligrams. In my congressional
district, $81 a month. The average foreign price, $35 a month.
Prilosec, in my district $129 a month. The average foreign price, $56 a
month; and the list goes on and on and on.
The drug manufacturers wrote this so-called Medicare prescription
drug bill, which is not for our seniors. It is a windfall for the big
drug manufacturers, and now we see their fingerprints all over this
bill today to go to conference on the ag appropriations bill.
Velma from my district writes and says she takes seven prescriptions
a month. It costs her $560, and she is trying to get by and live on
$604 a month.
Mary from my district says she takes four prescriptions a month that
cost her $401.88, and she is trying to get by on $586 a month.
I rise in support of the motion to instruct on behalf of the seniors
of America so we can take on the big drug manufacturers and the
Republican leadership and finally bring down the high cost of
prescription drugs for our seniors. This is America, and we can do
better than this by our seniors.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, this motion is an effort to prevent this Congress from
giving to the drug companies two early Christmas presents.
Let me put it this way: this Congress is about to tell the drug
companies that they will have carte blanche to do whatever they want on
drug costs. And this Congress will accomplish that in two ways. The
first step is by obliterating the efforts that we have tried to make to
allow the Federal Government to negotiate with drug companies for a
lower price for drugs by providing a drug benefit that goes to everyone
under Medicare. The Medicare legislation, which this House will be
asked to vote on this week, that Medicare legislation, at the
instruction of the Republican leadership, has eliminated all
possibility for the Federal Government to negotiate lower drug prices.
That is gift number one to the drug companies.
That means the only remaining way that seniors can get some help on
drug prices is by reimporting them from Canada. And the Medicare
legislation which will shortly be before us will state that or will
pretend that there is a Canadian drug reimport benefit but, in fact,
has a benefit which the FDA itself says will not work. That means the
only way left for Members to try to provide some degree of price
protection for prescription drugs for seniors is to vote for this
motion and to insist that this conference committee come back with the
provision that was adopted in the original House legislation. That is
why this motion is before us today. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the
motion.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
This vote will be followed by three 5-minute votes as follows:
House Resolution 444, by the yeas and nays;
approval of the Journal, de novo;
suspension of the rules on H.R. 3300, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 176, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 624]
YEAS--237
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--176
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Cardin
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
[[Page H11377]]
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harris
Hart
Hefley
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Hulshof
Isakson
Issa
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McIntyre
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Regula
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rothman
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Carson (OK)
Cole
Cubin
DeMint
Dingell
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Herger
Jenkins
Kaptur
Lantos
Musgrave
Ortiz
Pitts
Radanovich
Sanders
Toomey
Waters
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1235
Ms. DeGETTE and Messrs. ROTHMAN, FEENEY, WELDON of Florida, BACHUS,
ALEXANDER, THOMPSON of Mississippi, CLYBURN, BOEHLERT, DAVIS of
Florida, MORAN of Virginia, and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIs of Virginia, Mrs. BONO, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan,
and Messrs. McINNIS, GOODLATTE, FLAKE and CLAY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 624 I inadvertently voted
``aye.'' The vote was closed before I could correct the mistake. Had I
been able to do so, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________